On 20 February 2026, Mr Justice Birt handed down judgment on issues of liability and injunctive relief in Guy Carpenter & Company Ltd v Willis Re (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 361 (KB), major team move proceedings arising from the resignation of 22 employees in June 2025 in London and Bermuda, including two company directors, from Guy Carpenter to Willis Re, a new reinsurance broker.
Guy Carpenter brought claims against eight defendants—two Willis companies (“Willis”), three Willis Re companies and a director of one of the Willis Re companies (“Willis Re”) and the two former Guy Carpenter directors who resigned to join Willis Re. The claims proceeded to a 3.5-week expedited trial on issues of liability and injunctive relief. Willis denied all liability and the claim against Willis settled during the trial.
On the question of the liability of Willis Re and the former Guy Carpenter directors, the Judge found the former directors to be liable to Guy Carpenter for certain breaches of contract and fiduciary duty ([227], [251]). Willis Re were found liable for inducing breach of contract and dishonest assistance ([272]–[274]). The Judge also found that two distinct unlawful means conspiracies were entered into between Willis Re and each of the former Guy Carpenter directors ([286]–[288]). Various admissions of liability had already been made by the Defendants prior to trial, but the findings of breach made went beyond those admissions.
On injunctive relief, the Judge rejected the Defendants’ case that no springboard advantage had been obtained by Willis Re by reason of the breaches which had been admitted and found, and held that a four-month period of ‘no-recruitment’ springboard relief was appropriate. A longer period of springboard relief was held not to be appropriate because, on the counterfactual, the Judge held that most of the employees would probably have resigned in any event. Other heads of relief sought by the Claimants, including client relief and a confidential information injunction, were refused.
The decision clarifies the duties owed by directors and senior employees, and in particular (1) the content of the duty owed by a director under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 and (2) the disclosures that they ought to make to the company in the lead-up to, and during, team move operations.
Questions of quantum will be considered at a further trial in due course.
A copy of the judgment is available here.
Daniel Oudkerk KC, Helen Morton and Ben Cartwright appeared for Guy Carpenter (with Simon Forshaw KC, Katherine Eddy and Zac Sammour of 11KBW), instructed by Richard Garcia of Stephenson Harwood LLP.
David Craig KC appeared for Willis (with Jamie Susskind and Jack Steele of 11KBW), instructed by Chris Holme of Clyde & Co LLP.
