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

Any number of claimants or defendants may be joined in one set of proceedings. A single claim form may start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of together. Convenience is determined on the facts of each case, without additional tests of real progress, real significance or whether common issues will bind all or most parties.

Claims satisfying the former requirements of common questions of law or fact and arising from the same transaction or series of transactions will ordinarily qualify. Binding common issues are sufficient, but not necessary. Individual issues do not preclude joinder. Active case management must ensure that each claimant’s case is adequately explained and that defendants receive appropriate disclosure and a fair opportunity to respond.

The 134 claimants invested in one or more of nine property developments promoted by related companies. They alleged that the defendant solicitors, who used materially similar retainers and reports on title, failed to warn them adequately about the risks of non-completion and dissipation of their deposits.

HH Judge Jarman KC dismissed the solicitors’ application to strike out the single claim form under rules 3.4, 7.3 and 19.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. He followed Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB), finding significant common issues despite individual questions concerning matters such as reliance and the investors’ experience.

The solicitors appealed. The central issue was when multiple claimants may use one claim form and whether rule 7.3 imposed a test of real progress, real significance or binding common issues.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Rules 19.1 and 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 permit any number of claimants or defendants to be parties to one set of proceedings and permit a single claim form for all claims which can conveniently be disposed of together. “Claim” in rule 19.1 means proceedings, more precisely a set of proceedings commenced by a claim form. “A claimant” in rule 7.3 includes the plural.

2. Convenience is an ordinary English concept to be assessed on the facts of each case. Rule 7.3 contains no exclusionary test requiring real progress, real significance or a determination binding all or most parties. To that extent, the tests suggested in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) were legally incorrect. The court did not cast doubt on Abbott’s actual disposition.

3. Claims falling within the former Order 15 rule 4 plainly can be disposed of conveniently together. This includes claims raising common questions of law or fact and arising from the same transaction or series of transactions. Likewise, common issues binding all or most claimants will probably establish convenience. Neither situation defines the outer limit of the current rules.

4. The flexibility of rules 19.1 and 7.3 includes lead claims, preliminary issues and multiple trials. The existence of individual issues does not itself prevent use of one claim form. The importance of commonality, persuasive findings and other case-management considerations will vary across cases.

5. The unchallenged findings established common issues concerning the scope and breach of the solicitors’ duties, recoverable losses, the possible unlawfulness of the investments and the guarantees. The claims also arose from the same series of transactions. They could therefore conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings, making remittal unnecessary.

6. Such proceedings require active case management. Each claimant’s case must be properly explained, the defendant must know the case it must meet, and disclosure limitations must not produce unfairness. Courts and parties should also consider whether a group litigation order would be appropriate. Article 6(1) added nothing to the construction of the rules.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The solicitors’ appeal was dismissed by [2024] EWCA Civ 376. Although the High Court had applied an incorrect test derived from Abbott, its unchallenged findings established that the claims could conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings.

2. High Court: HH Judge Jarman KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed the solicitors’ application to strike out the single claim form on 25 July 2023. No neutral citation is stated in the judgment.