English court rules against single claim form for thousands of claims

In the case, known as known as Angel and others v Black Horse Ltd, the claimants had initially filed over 5,000 individual ‘unfair relationship’ claims against eight finance companies, grouping them into eight corresponding claim forms. The claimants proposed that sample or ‘test’ cases be tried in order to streamline the proceedings.

The claimants said that, under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 7.3, it was possible to bring all of their claims against a given finance company in a single claim form. According to CPR 7.3, when read alongside CPR 19.1, in certain circumstances, multiple claimants can use a single claim form for claims that can be ‘conveniently disposed of’ in the same legal proceedings. To determine whether this is allowed the court must apply the so-called ‘convenience test’.

Handing down his decision, the judge said that, in applying this test, he had to consider whether there were common significant issues between the claims brought under the same claim form and whether determining those issues in a sample case would bind the other parties to that claim form.

The claimants argued that their claims shared two common issues: whether the broker's conduct breached the consumer credit sourcebook (CONC) in a specific instance, and whether such a breach could potentially lead to a finding of unfairness under section 140A of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

However, the judge was not convinced that there were common issues between the claims of sufficient significance that their determination would make real progress toward the final determination of each claim.

He pointed out that the appropriateness of using a single claim form for multiple claims under CPR 7.3 remains a case-specific exercise. As a result of his findings, the judge ordered the separation of the claims, rejecting the claimants' request for a formal sampling process, as he believed it would not save time or costs.