Stuart Angel & Ors & v Black Horse Limited

For omnibus claim forms, the question under CPR r.7.3 is whether the claims can conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings. There is no exclusionary requirement that common issues must produce real progress, have real significance, or bind all parties. Those matters are relevant factors within the wider discretion.

The court should consider the pleaded common issues, likely developments after disclosure and further pleadings, the usefulness and persuasiveness of lead-case decisions, possible issue estoppel, and the overriding objective. In claims under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, unfairness under section 140A remains a broad, holistic and fact-sensitive inquiry. That does not prevent lead cases from determining common issues or guiding settlement and subsequent decisions.

More than 5,800 consumers brought eight omnibus claims against eight motor finance companies. The claims alleged that dealers or brokers received undisclosed discretionary commissions under arrangements with lenders, causing unfair relationships under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

HHJ Worster ordered the claims to be severed into separate claim forms. He considered that the pleaded common issues lacked sufficient significance and that decisions in lead cases would have limited effect because each unfair-relationship claim was fact-sensitive.

The claimants appealed. The central issue was whether the claims could conveniently be disposed of together under CPR rr.7.3 and 19.1, having regard to the correct legal test and the available methods of omnibus case management.

1. Appeal allowed. The order of 24 November 2023 severing the claims was set aside. The claims were remitted for case management under the omnibus claim form procedure, with consequential matters left for a further hearing.
2. CPR rr.7.3 and 19.1 must be given their ordinary meaning. The question is whether the claims can conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings. The so-called real-progress, real-significance and bindingness tests identified in Abbott were not exclusionary requirements. They were relevant considerations, as confirmed by Morris.
3. The first-instance judge had applied the superseded approach in Abbott. This was a substantive error because the omnibus jurisdiction is flexible and wider than the GLO criteria. The assessment should be made according to the facts and the likely future course of the litigation.
4. At the early stage of these claims, the generic pleadings disclosed broad common issues concerning the interpretation and breach of CONC, the effect of non-disclosure of discretionary commissions, and lender liability for broker or dealer conduct under section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The agency and lender-liability issue was common notwithstanding variations between dealers, cars and loans.
5. A finding of unfairness in principle, detached from the individual facts, would generally be impermissible because section 140A requires a holistic assessment of all relevant matters. However, lead cases could be tried on their full facts. Decisions concerning standard brokerage agreements, disclosure documents, commission structures, regulatory breaches and agency could be persuasive, and might be made binding for particular cohorts through issue estoppel or case-management directions.
6. The court identified nine relevant considerations, including the number of parties, similarity of the claims and causes of action, common issues in the pleadings and defences, the likely significance of lead cases, and the overriding objective. The large number of claimants, common causes of action, likely common issues, access to justice, reduced duplication, focused disclosure and avoidance of conflicting decisions favoured flexible omnibus management.
7. The case was at an unusually early stage. The absence of a generic defence and key disclosure made severance premature. The appropriate course was to obtain further pleadings and disclosure before defining precise common issues and selecting lead cases.

1. High Court (King's Bench Division): appeal from the case-management decisions of HHJ Worster at Birmingham County Court, explained in judgments dated 8 September 2023 and 10 November 2023. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the severance order dated 24 November 2023, and remitted the claims for further case management.