Court of Appeal guidance on multiple claimants bringing claims on a single claim form

In Morris & Ors v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm) [2024] EWCA Civ 376 the Court of Appeal provided guidance on when multiple claimants can bring their claims in a single claim form and single set of proceedings. There are logistical and financial implications if claimants are required to issue separate claim forms and pay separate issue fees, and it is more challenging for legal representatives to manage a large number of similar claims with different claim numbers.

The Court of Appeal disapproved of the addition of a “real progress” test set out in an earlier High Court decision and emphasised the “convenience” wording in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Background

134 claimants brought professional negligence claims against the defendant, a firm of solicitors. The claimants brought the claims using a single claim form. The defendant sought to strike out the claims on several grounds, including that the proceedings initiated did not comply with the regime in CPR 19.1 and the related test in CPR 7.3 which provides that “a claimant may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.”

The judge dismissed the defendant’s application. The judge considered the proper meaning of CPR 7.3 and applied the “real progress” test set out in the earlier case of Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB). The judge in Abbott held that if there are likely to be common issues of sufficient significance that their determination would constitute real progress towards the final determination of each claim in a set of claims, that could be enough for a conclusion that common disposal of the claims would be convenient.

The judge in the current case, in applying Abbott, was satisfied there was sufficient commonality between the claims to proceed on one claim form. The defendant appealed.

The parties’ arguments in the Court of Appeal

The defendant argued that (i) Abbott was wrong because the language of the CPR refers to a singular claimant and to a cause of action rather than to proceedings; and (ii) allowing the claimants to group together their claims would cause them to be unable properly to defend themselves.

The claimants argued Abbott was correctly decided and properly applied and that, in any event, there was nothing ‘new’ about multi-claimant proceedings. They further argued that irrespective of what test applied, their claims could be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings in line with CPR 7.3. The claimants also stated they would abandon their claims if they were required to pursue them individually due to the costs barriers to do so.

Decision

The Court of Appeal agreed with the defendant that Abbott was incorrect in law in suggesting that CPR 7.3 required the court to apply a "real progress" test when considering whether all claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings but disagreed with the defendant’s construction of the CPR. CPR 19.1 and 7.3 mean 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 test beyond the words of CPR 7.3. Considerations of “real progress” and similar are not relevant to the determination of an application brought pursuant to CPR 19.1 and 7.3.

The court will determine what is convenient according to the facts of every case. The Court of Appeal noted that the matters raised in Abbott might be relevant to the question of whether it was convenient to use a single claim form. However, relevant matters will “vary across a wide spectrum of cases” and the Court of Appeal did not wish to confine the discretion of judges deciding that question.

On the facts of the current case, given the judge's finding that common questions of law or fact arose in all the claimants’ claims, the Court of Appeal agreed that the claims brought in one claim form could be conveniently disposed of in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

• This judgment potentially benefits claimants that are seeking to raise claims using a single claim form by doing away with any additional threshold tests beyond the language in CPR 7.3 that all claims “can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.”
• A judge will assess on the facts of each case whether a group of claims can be “conveniently disposed of” together. Cases where common questions of law or fact arise, where claims arise out of the same transaction, and where common issues will bind all the claimants will likely be capable of being conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. However, the types of situations which will satisfy CPR 7.3 are not exhaustive.
• The Court of Appeal also commented that defendants to group actions initiated by a single claim form may face potential unfairness in the absence of active case management. For example, the circumstances that justify a single claim form may not be clearly identified, and the page and document limits which apply to initial disclosure in the Business and Property Courts may operate to allow the claimants to withhold key documents at the early stages of the case. The Court emphasised that every possible step should be taken to ensure that each claimant's case is properly explained so that the defendant knows the case it has to meet, and such cases will inevitably require active case management and proper engagement with the court by the parties and their lawyers.

With thanks to Mariana Plaza Cardenas for her assistance in preparing this post.