Richard Neil Adams & Ors v Ministry of Defence

Under CPR rules 7.3 and 19.1, whether multiple claims may proceed on one claim form turns on convenience. Convenience is assessed by broad judicial discretion according to the facts of each case. It is not confined by mandatory requirements that common issues produce binding determinations, that there be a single final trial, or that the claims make real progress or have real significance as a cohort. The court may consider the convenience and capacity of the court system, including the proportionate allocation of finite resources. Claims properly joined at the outset may later be disaggregated if continuing them together becomes inconvenient. Existing case-management arrangements and legitimate expectations may nevertheless justify pragmatic measures short of requiring fresh claim forms.

The claimants were cohorts of former military personnel pursuing non-freezing cold injury claims against the Ministry of Defence. The claims had originally been pursued through omnibus claim forms. Generic issues had later been resolved by agreement, leaving individual issues of diagnosis, causation and quantum. The cohort had grown substantially and its claims were being progressed through separate case numbers and files because of administrative difficulties.

The court was asked whether the claims could still conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings under CPR rule 7.3, and whether further claimants should be added to the existing omnibus claim form or required to issue fresh proceedings.

1. Disposition. The court decided not to disturb the existing status quo. No further claims were to be added to the existing or associated files. New claimants were instead to issue fresh claim forms, provisionally limited to 60 claimants, with additional claimants listed in a numbered schedule.
2. Applicable test. CPR rules 7.3 and 19.1 require a broad assessment of convenience. Following and applying Morris and Ryan & Ors v Williams & Co. Solicitors (A Firm) [2024] EWCA Civ 376, convenience is determined according to the facts of each case. No mandatory exclusionary test is imposed by the rules.
3. The three tests identified in Abbott & Others v Ministry of Defence [2023] 1 W.L.R. 4002—real progress, real significance and binding effect—were not mandatory rules. They could be relevant factors within the overall discretion, but did not determine the result.
4. Convenience includes the court’s own convenience and capacity. CPR rule 1 and the Overriding Objective permit consideration of finite court resources, the effect of administrative systems on parties and other court users, and proportionate cost.
5. The generic agreement, common expert evidence, factual similarities, template directions and persuasive effect of individual decisions did not require continuation of the omnibus form, since those benefits could be preserved through common case management. Prima facie, once claims require individual assessment, their continuation in one omnibus proceeding may cease to be convenient.
6. Nevertheless, requiring fresh individual claim forms for existing claims would be duplicative, administratively burdensome and disruptive of legitimate expectations. Active claims could continue under separate case numbers and be tried in tranches where they progressed in step towards a common trial date. The parties were invited to submit an order reflecting the rulings.

First-instance case-management decision. The judgment records earlier orders by Senior Master Fontaine, His Honour Judge Cotter QC and Sweeting J, but no appeal from a lower court decision.