Court of Appeal rejects the Abbott tests for “convenient disposal” of multiple claims in one claim form

The Court of Appeal has overturned the tests set out in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) [2023] 1 WLR 4002 in relation to determining whether it is suitable for multiple claimants to bring their claims on a single claim form.

Background

In Morris & Ors v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm) [2024] EWCA Civ 376, the defendant applied to strike out the claim form on the grounds that it was an abuse of process, or was an obstruction to the just disposal of the proceedings, or otherwise that the claim form did not comply with CPR 7.3.

CPR 7.3 provides that “[a] claimant may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings”.

CPR 19.1 provides that “any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to a claim”.

The meaning of “convenient disposal” was considered in Abbott. In that case, a claim form had been issued in the High Court in the name of Mr Abbott and 3,449 other individuals.

At the initial case management hearing, the Master, without any argument on the point from the defendant, found that the approach taken was not permitted under the CPR. That determination was reversed by the High Court, which identified three tests to determine whether the case could be brought within the ambit of 19.1.

The defendant in Morris argued that Abbott had misinterpreted both CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1. Furthermore, it was argued that it was inconvenient and unfair for the 134 claimants to group together their distinct claims which had already led to inadequate disclosure and would lead to the defendant being unable to properly defend themselves.

Court of Appeal judgment

In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the approach to CPR 19.1 and CPR 7.3 developed in Abbott, but concluded that the claimants should be allowed to proceed under a single claim form. The lead judgment was provided by the Master of the Rolls, Vos LJ.

By way of context, Vos LJ reviewed the various provisions of the CPR which accommodate multiple claimants bringing claims under one claim form and one set of proceedings.

In addition to CPR 19.1, the rule relevant to Morris, alternative mechanisms include: the issuing of a Group Litigation Order (GLO) (CPR 19.21 – 19.24); or representative proceedings (CPR 19.8 – 19.20).

The history of group litigation was reviewed in brief, Vos LJ noting, rather tartly, that “…it does not appear that the court in Abbott was referred to the history of group claims that I have recorded…”

He considered that the tests developed in Abbott for determining whether multiple claims could be brought under one claim form were inappropriate.

Instead, CPR 19.1 and CPR 7.3

“must be construed as meaning what they say: any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to proceedings, and claimants may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. There is no exclusionary rule of real progress, real significance, or otherwise. The court will determine what is convenient according to the facts of every case”.

There was

“no test beyond the words of rule 7.3” and “[T]he current CPR does not restrict the flexibility of CPR 19.1 and CPR 7.3 by imposing a requirement that one or more issues has to be common to or bind all or even most of the other parties.”

Vos LJ did, however, make clear that he was not saying the matters considered in Abbott were irrelevant to the question of whether it was convenient to dispose of the claims in the same set of proceedings. It was nevetheless important that the discretion of judges was not constrained by the imposition of interpretative tests for rules “that are written in plain English.”

Approaching CPR 7.3 in that way, the single issue to consider was convenience, and it would be for the court to determine what was convenient according to the facts of every case.

Having rejected the Abbott approach, the question was whether the claims brought by the claimants in their single claim form could be conveniently disposed of in these proceedings. Yes, they could. Appeal dismissed.

Comment

The judgment has been described by the claimants’ solicitors (Penningtons Manches Cooper) as a “significant legal victory for claimant class action teams” on the basis that it was “likely to make it easier for claimants to bring claims even where there are differences between the claims and the claimants” (reported in Legal Futures, 19 April 2024).

Whether that proves to be the case or not remains to be seen. Vos LJ was keen to emphasise that nothing in his judgment should be taken as discouraging the use of GLOs, which were “a very useful and desirable procedure in many cases...it is valuable for the parties and the court to consider in every case started by multiple claimants by a single claim form whether it would be appropriate for a GLO to be applied for.”

Significantly, Vos LJ recommended that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee “have another look” at the current provisions relating to multiple claimants using a single form to see “whether the existing rules are working well”.

Watch this space…