David Abbott & Ors v Ministry Of Defence

CPR 7.3 permits a single claim form for multiple claims where their common disposal in one set of proceedings would be useful or helpful. The test is fact-specific. It does not require that every claim be finally determined at one trial, nor that common disposal be the only reasonable method of determination. CPR 19.1 imposes no absolute limit on the number of claimants who may be joined. Joint case management is not itself sufficient, but significant common issues whose determination would make real progress towards resolving each claim may establish convenience. Administrative difficulties, court-fee policy and CE-File considerations cannot determine the construction of CPR 7.3.

The claimants appealed against an order of Master Davison dated 25 July 2022, made in proceedings concerning more than 3,000 alleged military noise-induced hearing-loss claims against the Ministry of Defence. The Master held that the claims could not conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings and required each claimant other than Mr Abbott to issue a separate claim form.

The appeal concerned the meaning and effect of CPR 7.3, read with CPR 19.1. The claimants contended that the claims raised sufficient common issues to justify one set of proceedings, notwithstanding that individual issues would remain.

1. Appeal allowed. Master Davison had erred in requiring each claimant to issue a separate claim form.
2. CPR 19.1 provides that any number of claimants may be joined as parties to proceedings commenced by a single claim form. The number of claimants, without more, is irrelevant.
3. Under CPR 7.3, the question is whether the claims can conveniently be finally determined, to the extent disputed, in the same proceedings. Convenience means usefulness or helpfulness. The rule does not require a single trial, or that common disposal be the only reasonable method of resolving the claims.
4. Common disposal must be distinguished from common case management. The fact that claims can be managed together does not by itself satisfy CPR 7.3. However, common issues of sufficient significance that their determination would constitute real progress towards determining each claim may suffice.
5. The relevant common issues included military duties of care, protective equipment and training, diagnostic criteria for military noise-induced hearing loss, latency, age-related hearing loss and asymmetric hearing loss. Those issues made it convenient for the claims to proceed in one set of proceedings.
6. The analogy with group litigation orders did not establish a one-claimant-per-form rule. Boake Allen Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2007] UKHL 25 was concerned with an obiter observation and did not support that conclusion. CE-File difficulties and court-fee policy were irrelevant to the construction of CPR 7.3.
7. Lord Justice Dingemans agreed. The inquiry is fact-specific, and the existence of different outcomes in other litigation reflects differences between the claimants and claim forms. The case-management court was directed to consider the Ministry’s submission that findings in lead cases might not bind other claimants.

• High Court (King's Bench Division), Divisional Court: The appeal from Master Davison’s order dated 25 July 2022 was allowed.
• Master Davison: The court held that the omnibus claim form was impermissible and required separate claim forms for the other claimants: [2022] EWHC 1807 (QB).