England has no direct equivalent to US class actions. However, there are various claim models under English procedural rules (CPR) that have similarities. They are summarised in our October 2022 blog post – Data Disputes: How the English Class Action Landscape is Shaping Up.
One model is for all claimants to bring their claims together in a single set of proceedings on one claim form. One advantage of this model for claimants is that they share the fee for commencing proceedings in circumstances where individual court fees may be disproportionate by comparison to the value of individual claims.
The mechanism has a long provenance but, with the rise in class actions, a number of cases have recently considered the circumstances in which multiple claimants can use it. In Abbott v. the Ministry of Defence,[1] the High Court rejected an attempt to commence claims for 3,500 claimants on a single claim form, but this was overturned on appeal.[2] A key finding on appeal was that common disposal rather than separate disposal of a set of claims would be appropriate ‘[i]f 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 Ryan Morris and Others v. Williams & Co Solicitors,[3] the Court of Appeal has comprehensively reviewed this mechanism – in its historical context – and has reiterated that any number of claimants may commence proceedings using a single claim form to make their claims.
The key procedural rules are:
- CPR 7.3: ‘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: ‘Any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to a claim’.
- Which, of course, fall to be interpreted consistently with CPR Part 1.1(1): ‘These Rules are a procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost’.
In Morris, 134 investors in unsuccessful property investment projects brought negligence claims against a solicitors’ firm on a single claim form. The defendant applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, or because the claim form did not comply with CPR 7.3, on the basis that the claims could not conveniently be joined on a single claim form when ‘different advice was given to different claimants at different times regarding different projects‘. At first instance, applying Abbott, the High Court concluded that there was a sufficient commonality between the claims for them to proceed on a single claim form.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The leading judgment was given by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that common questions of law or fact arose in all the claimants’ claims out of the same series of transactions, deciding that:
- The reference to ‘claimant’ in CPR 7.3 includes ‘claimants’ in the plural, and the meaning of the word ‘claim’ in CPR 19.1, in its context, means ‘proceedings’ or ‘a set of proceedings commenced by a claim form’, as opposed to a ’cause of action’ brought by a single claimant.
- CPR 7.3 and 19.1 together 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.
- ‘Conveniently’ is a simple English word that does not need to be defined: Convenience will be decided on the facts of each case. Many matters might inform that question, and those matters will vary by case.
- The court placed weight on a predecessor rule, which allowed multiple claimants where, amongst other things, ‘some common question of law or fact’ arose, suggesting that the rules committee could usefully look as to whether this language should be reintroduced. The rule has a long history, as do group claims made under it.
- The court stated that it ‘ ¦ is obviously the case that claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings if common questions of law or fact arise in all the claims brought and if the claims are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions’.
- The suggestion in Abbott that CPR 7.3 required the claimants to satisfy a ‘real progress’ test, a ‘real significance’ test or a requirement that the determination of common issues in a claim by multiple claimants under CPR 19.1 would bind all parties was rejected.
- The court recognised that claims with multiple claimants would require active case management by the court, and that litigants and their legal representatives would need to engage with that process – not least to avoid prejudice to defendants from the application of rules that were not designed for group actions that could limit the documents and information provided to defendants in the early stages of proceedings.
- In particular, every possible step should be taken to ensure that each individual claimant’s case is properly explained so that the defendant knows the case it has to meet, and to facilitate early dispute resolution. Disclosure also would need to be carefully managed.
- The Court of Appeal reiterated that in every case started by multiple claimants on a single claim form, the parties and the court should consider whether a group litigation order (GLO) would be appropriate. GLOs are intended to provide effective case management and resolution of claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law – for example, by allowing efficient determination of issues in a way that will bind all of the parties.
[1] [2022] EWHC 1807.
[2] [2023] EWHC 2839 (KB).
[3] [2024] EWCA Civ 376.
Contributors