DAVID ABBOTT & Ors v MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

A claimant cannot use one claim form to commence multiple claims unless those claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. Common parties, a common defendant and shared themes are insufficient where the claims differ substantially in their factual circumstances and require individual trials. The proposed use of lead cases does not cure the defect if the remaining claims would still require separate litigation. The court may refuse to warehouse improperly constituted claims by a stay or standstill arrangement. Where individual claim forms are required, the court may direct that the claims be struck out unless properly reissued within a specified period.

The claim form commenced approximately 3,500 military noise-induced hearing loss claims against the Ministry of Defence. The claims arose in different periods and circumstances, although they shared a defendant and some common themes. The issue was whether the claimants could lawfully be joined on one claim form under CPR rules 19.1 and 7.3.

The court also considered whether the proceedings should be stayed to allow settlement discussions or treated as a standstill arrangement, and whether the claimants should instead be required to issue individual claim forms. Earlier case-management decisions concerning other cohorts of claims, including the approach in Boake Allen v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2007] 1 WLR 1386, were relied upon in addressing the issue.

1. Joinder and use of one claim form. CPR rule 19.1 permits multiple claimants to be joined, but it is subject to CPR rule 7.3. A claimant may use a single claim form only for claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The 3,500 claims could not satisfy that requirement because of the substantial differences in the periods and circumstances of the alleged noise exposure and injury.
2. Lead cases. The proposal to select 16 lead cases did not overcome the objection. The remaining claims would not necessarily be resolved by the lead-case outcomes and could generate multiple tracks and trials. The proceedings therefore could not properly continue as one claim.
3. Group litigation analogy. The management of the claims was analogous to a Group Litigation Order. Under paragraph 6.1A of PD19B, every claim placed on a group litigation register must be issued by a claim form and accompanied by the relevant court fee. The claimants had no proper basis for more favourable treatment. The approach in Boake Allen v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2007] 1 WLR 1386 supported that conclusion.
4. Stay and final direction. A stay was inappropriate. The claims, as constituted, could not be progressed, and the proposed arrangement would amount to warehousing them as a standstill agreement, which the parties could arrange themselves. Individual claim forms were therefore required within six months, failing which the claims would be struck out. Permission to appeal was refused, subject to renewal of the application to a High Court Judge within 21 days.

The judgment records earlier case-management rulings concerning other cohorts of claims, including decisions by Senior Master Fontaine and Master Davison. No appeal determination is stated in this judgment. Permission to appeal was refused, with permission to renew the application to a High Court Judge within 21 days.