ADAM RAWET and Others v DAIMLER AG

Before service of a claim form, CPR 17.1(1) permits an existing claimant to amend the claim form to add another claimant, including a person bringing a separate claim. The rule must be read with CPR 19.4(1), which governs changes of parties after service. The written-consent requirement in CPR 19.4(4) applies to the post-service procedure and is not imported into the pre-service regime. A first-instance High Court may depart from another first-instance decision where it is convinced that decision is wrong.

The claim concerned proposed group proceedings arising from alleged unlawful defeat devices in Mercedes diesel vehicles. Two individuals were added as claimants to an unserved claim form under CPR 17.1(1), without the defendants’ consent or permission from the court. The claimants sought declarations that the additions were valid and that separate written consents under CPR 19.4(4) were unnecessary.

The issue arose against the decision of Mann J in Various Claimants v G4S plc [2021] EWHC 524 (Ch), which had adopted the contrary construction. The central questions were whether a claim form could be amended before service to add claimants with separate claims, and whether pre-service additions required filed written consent.

1. Declaration made. Mr Kocegarovs and Mr Mussajlbal were properly added as claimants by the amendment to the claim form effected on 22 September 2021.
2. Pre-service amendments. CPR 17.1(1), read alongside CPR 19.4(1), provides the pre-service regime for changes of parties. The reference to amending a statement of case concerns the claim form as a document, rather than only the claim contained in it. An existing claimant may therefore amend the claim form to introduce an additional claimant, including one advancing a separate claim. A narrower construction would create an unnecessarily formalistic and disproportionate regime, particularly in group litigation, and would conflict with the Overriding Objective and the approach reflected in Sayers v SmithKline Beecham Plc [2002] 1 WLR 2274 and Boake Allen Limited v HMRC [2007] UKHL 25.
3. Written consent. CPR 19.4(4) applies only to the post-service application procedure. Its requirement for filed written consent is not a condition of an amendment made without permission under CPR 17.1. The availability of an application under CPR 17.2(1) to disallow an amendment provides protection against an unauthorised addition.
4. The court nevertheless agreed with the separate point in Various Claimants v G4S plc that, where CPR 19.4(4) applies, the consent must be recorded in a separate document filed before the addition takes effect; a solicitor’s signature on the amended claim form is insufficient.
5. Dingemans LJ stated that judicial comity ordinarily required this Divisional Court to follow another first-instance High Court decision unless convinced that it was wrong. The court was so convinced, and both judges agreed on the construction of CPR 17 and CPR 19.

First-instance decision of the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) determining the validity of pre-service amendments to the claim form.