English High Court Grants Case Management Stay in NTT Limited & Ors v Jason Goodall Amidst Court-Arbitration Concurrent Proceedings

Citation: [2024] EWHC 445 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the case of NTT Limited & Ors v Jason Goodall, the English High Court in the Commercial Court examined an application for a case management stay under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, section 49(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and/or Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.1(2)(f). The decision delves into the principles regarding the granting of stays where there is the presence of parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions or forums, specifically arbitration.

Key Facts

The case involves a dispute between various entities within the NTT Group and their former Group CEO, Jason Goodall, surrounding the alleged concealment of a conflict of interest in a transaction and breaches of fiduciary and/or contractual duties. An earlier agreement between certain claimants (C1, C2, and C6) and Mr. Goodall dictated that disputes would be resolved through mediation and, if necessary, arbitration. This arbitration agreement led to the separation of claims with these claimants pursuing arbitration, while the other claimants (C3, C4, C5, and C7) sought to continue litigating their claims in court. Mr. Goodall applied to the court for a stay of all claims, with the initial scope of the application being broader but later narrowed to only the claims by C3-C7 after an agreement to stay the proceedings of the initial claimants was reached.

The court’s decision hinges on the interpretation of the appropriate use of case management stays where concurrent proceedings in an alternative dispute resolution forum exist. The judgment primarily draws on the principles outlined in the case of Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051, which settled that the sole test for granting a stay is what is required by the interests of justice in the specific case. The judgment reiterated that the usual function of the court is to decide cases, access to justice is a fundamental principle, and a stay should only be granted in rare and compelling circumstances.

The court comprehensively refers to multiple English case law precedents to support its evaluation, notably Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International [2000] 1 WLR 173, Amlin Corporate Member Ltd v Oriental Assurance Corpn (The Princess of the Stars) [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 495, and Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd [2020] Bus LR 2422. The decision reaffirms that sundry factors such as the existence of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, avoiding the risk of inconsistent decisions, the absence of any apparent advantage to concurrent proceedings, and the nature of the relationship and claims amongst related parties all contribute to the court’s final determination.


The Court, presided over by Dame Clare Moulder DBE, concluded it was in the interests of justice to grant a stay on the proceedings of the remaining claimants (C3-C7), despite the lack of binding legal effect and the presence of separate legal claims. The Court determined the likely early resolution of similar or related issues in the arbitration between other parties in the NTT Group may render the continued litigation on similar issues unnecessary or undesirable due to potential inconsistency in rulings or a disproportionate increase in costs.


The key takeaway from NTT Limited & Ors v Jason Goodall is that in instances of concurrent disputes across court and arbitration settings among parties related by corporate structure and underlying claims, it is within the court’s discretion to grant a stay in the interests of justice to avoid unnecessary parallel proceedings. The decision affirms the principle that unique and compelling circumstances that favour judicial economy, consistency in the resolution of disputes, and the core function of judicature to decide cases all play into the granting of such a stay. The English High Court, through its judicious application of these legal principles, contributes to a growing body of case law establishing the parameters for the use of case management stays in commercial disputes.

Related Summaries