Adams & Individuals Listed In Schedule 1 To the Amended Claim Form v Ford & Ors Listed In Schedule 2 To the Amended Claim Form & Ors

This Court of Appeal decision upholds the principle that proceedings issued without the authority of some named plaintiffs are not automatically a nullity and may be adopted or ratified by those plaintiffs (following Presentaciones Musicales SA v Secunda). The court held that the falsity of a statement of truth does not, of itself, render a claim form void; the Civil Procedure Rules provide sanctions but do not convert every false verification into an automatic nullity. The judge’s decision that striking out the multi‑party claim would be disproportionate and an inappropriate remedy for the solicitors’ failure of candour was endorsed.

Key legal principles: CPR 3.4 power to strike out must be exercised proportionately; CPR 22 and PD 22 govern statements of truth and remedies for failure to verify; a solicitor who issues proceedings without authority may be liable in costs but the proceedings remain capable of ratification; abuse of process requires close fact‑sensitive analysis and was not made out on these facts.

Background and parties: The claim was brought by subscribers to the Keydata Technology Partnerships claiming the schemes were fraudulent. A claim form was issued on 1 April 2010 in the names of 273 claimants (later amended to 170 and then further reduced). Addleshaw Goddard issued the claim form and Michael Green, a partner, signed the statement of truth. Two former partners of Collyer Bristow and the firm itself (among other defendants) challenged the claim on the basis that some named claimants had not authorised the issue of proceedings.

Procedural history: The defendants applied to strike out under CPR 3.4(2) and/or the court’s inherent jurisdiction on the basis that the claim form had been issued without authority and that the statement of truth was false. The application was dismissed by David Steel J in the Commercial Court (2010 Folio 423). The defendants obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of the application: The defendants sought strike out on grounds that (i) the claim form (and amended claim form) was a nullity because it had been issued without authority in the names of some claimants and (ii) alternatively that issuing proceedings without authority or issuing a claim form verified by an untrue statement of truth amounted to an abuse of process justifying strike out.

Issues framed: (1) Whether the claim form was legally ineffective in whole or as to the later instructors; (2) whether the claim form should have been struck out as an abuse of process in whole or as to the later instructors; including sub‑questions whether issuing proceedings without authority is necessarily an abuse and whether a false statement of truth requires strike out.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: The Court of Appeal (Toulson LJ, Arden LJ and Black LJ) held that longstanding authorities (in particular Presentaciones Musicales) establish that proceedings issued without authority are not automatically void and may be adopted or ratified by the party on whose behalf they were purportedly issued. The Civil Procedure Rules do not displace that principle: the Rules recognise that an unverified statement of case remains effective unless struck out (CPR 22.2) and provide specific sanctions. Allowing falsity to render pleadings void would create unacceptable opportunities for pre‑trial strike out and undermine the rules’ scheme. Whether issue without authority is an abuse of process is highly fact sensitive; on the particular facts (limitation concerns, dispersed subscribers, practical difficulties in obtaining instructions) the conduct was not an abuse. Although Mr Green’s statement of truth was false and there was a failure of candour, the judge was entitled to conclude that strike out was disproportionate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Wider context: The court emphasised the need to balance access to justice in multi‑party litigation with transparency and proper professional conduct; the remedy for the solicitors’ breach was not automatic strike out of meritorious claims.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to strike out the proceedings. It held that a claim form issued without authority is not automatically a nullity and may be ratified; the Civil Procedure Rules do not require a contrary result; falsity in a statement of truth does not of itself render a claim form legally ineffective; and on the facts there was no abuse of process that justified striking out the multi‑party claim, although the solicitors’ failure of candour was a serious shortcoming.

Appeal from the Commercial Court (Queen’s Bench Division) decision of David Steel J (2010 Folio 423). Leave to appeal granted by Rix LJ. This judgment is the Court of Appeal decision reported as [2012] EWCA Civ 544.