Ryan Morris & Ors v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm)

The Court of Appeal held that CPR Part 19.1 and CPR Part 7.3 permit multiple claimants to be joined in a single set of proceedings commenced by one claim form where the claims can be "conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings". The court rejected the formulation of exclusionary tests described in Abbott (the "real progress" and "real significance" tests, and any requirement that common issues must bind all or most claimants). The historical regime under the Rules of the Supreme Court, in particular Order 15 rule 4, informed the proper construction of the CPR and supported a broad approach to joinder and use of a single claim form.

The court applied those principles to the facts: the High Court judge had found sufficient common issues of law and fact arising from a standard retainer and common documentation for 134 claimants alleging solicitors' negligence in advice about property-development investments. Those factual findings were not appealed; on that basis the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against refusal to strike out and confirmed that the claims may proceed in one set of proceedings.

Background and parties: 134 investors (the Claimants) sued Williams & Co Solicitors for damages for alleged breaches of the solicitors' duty to advise in relation to investments in nine development projects promoted by linked companies. The solicitors had provided standard retainer documentation, reports on title and other documents. The solicitors applied to strike out the claim form arguing that joinder of so many claimants in one claim form was impermissible under CPR Part 19.1 and Part 7.3.

Procedural posture: The application to strike out was dismissed by HH Judge Jarman KC in the Business and Property Courts (ChD). The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court was invited to consider the proper construction of CPR 19.1 and 7.3 and the correctness of the approach taken in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB).

• Nature of relief sought: the Claimants sought damages for negligent advice; the defendant sought an order striking out the consolidated claim form on grounds of abuse of process, obstruction to just disposal, and non-compliance with CPR 7.3.
• Issues framed by the court: (i) the proper meaning and scope of CPR Part 19.1 and CPR Part 7.3; (ii) whether the tests adopted in Abbott (real progress, real significance, or binding determination) are required; (iii) the applicability of the older RSC regime (Order 15 rule 4) to interpretation of the CPR; and (iv) an Article 6(1) point raised in the Respondents' Notice.

Reasoning and subsidiary findings: The Master of the Rolls concluded that CPR 19.1 and 7.3 should be read broadly: any number of claimants may be joined in proceedings, and a claimant may start all claims that can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The court rejected importing the Abbott exclusionary tests as requirements of the CPR. The historical practice under the RSC, especially O15 r4 (which permitted joinder where common questions of law or fact arose and claims arose out of the same transaction or series), demonstrated that the CPR was not intended to narrow the historical scope for multiple claimants issuing a single writ/claim form. The court accepted the High Court judge's factual findings of significant common issues (scope of duty, breach questions, recoverable losses, possible collective investment scheme issues, guarantees) and held that, on those findings, the claims satisfied the relevant convenience test and could proceed together. The court noted potential fairness risks to defendants in large multipart claim forms if not actively case-managed, and observed that a Group Litigation Order remains a useful tool in appropriate cases.

Article 6: the court held that Article 6(1) did not add to the analysis once 19.1 and 7.3 were construed as permitting a broad range of multiple-claimant claims in one claim form.

This was an appeal from the High Court (Business and Property Courts, ChD). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that CPR Part 19.1 and CPR Part 7.3 permit multiple claimants to be joined in the same proceedings commenced by a single claim form where the claims can be conveniently disposed of in those proceedings; there is no additional requirement that common issues produce "real progress", have "real significance" or bind all or most claimants. The court applied the rule as informed by the historical RSC Order 15 rule 4 and concluded that, given the unappealed findings of common issues, it was convenient for the 134 claims to proceed together.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Chancery Division), HH Judge Jarman KC (strike-out application dismissed). The judgment engages with Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) (Divisional Court decision) and subsequent Abbott interlocutory proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division [2023] EWHC 2839 (KB).