Black Horse Limited v Stuart Angel & Ors

Under rule 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the question is whether multiple claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The assessment takes its ordinary meaning and may include common issues, lead cases, case-management powers, the interests of the parties and court resources. Common issues need not bind every claimant, and individual factual assessments or remedies do not prevent convenient disposal.

Unfairness under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires a broad, holistic and fact-specific assessment. Breach of CONC, the existence or size of an undisclosed commission, and the credit agreement’s terms are relevant factors only. No single factor creates a presumption of unfairness.

More than 5,000 consumers brought claims against eight motor-finance companies under the unfair-relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claims were issued in eight omnibus claim forms and relied on alleged non-disclosure of discretionary commission arrangements between lenders and motor dealers.

HHJ Worster held that the claims could not conveniently be disposed of together under rule 7.3 and ordered their disaggregation. On appeal, the High Court held that the convenience test had been met and made directions for generic defences and disclosure: [2025] EWHC 490 (KB). The defendants appealed on the exercise of discretion and the case-management directions. The central issue was whether the claims could conveniently proceed together despite the fact-sensitive nature of unfairness and remedy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s orders were maintained and the matter was remitted to Birmingham County Court for further directions.
2. Rule 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules uses the ordinary meaning of convenience. The relevant question is whether common disposal, rather than separate disposal, would be convenient. It is not necessary that one final trial be possible, or that common issues bind all claimants. The court must consider the interests of all parties, the court and the court system.
3. Convenient disposal includes the case-management journey as well as the final outcome. The availability of questionnaires, pleading pools, lead cases, disclosure and multiple trials is therefore relevant, although case management is not automatically determinative. Morris & Others v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376 was followed in rejecting an exclusionary test.
4. The claims involved common issues concerning the Consumer Credit Act 1974, CONC, discretionary commissions, non-disclosure and possible agency under section 56. Their fact-sensitive character did not prevent those issues from being common issues. The court distinguished the restrictive aspect of Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (KB), while retaining the principle that a single final trial is unnecessary.
5. The unfairness inquiry under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is broad and holistic. The size of an undisclosed commission cannot alone establish unfairness or create a presumption. The approach in Johnson [2025] UKSC 33, together with Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited [2014] UKSC 61 and Smith v Royal Bank of Scotland [2023] UKSC 34, supported that conclusion.
6. Lead cases could produce commercially persuasive guidance across similar fact patterns, even where their decisions were not binding. They could assist settlement and proportionate disposal. Individual remedies, which would remain fact-sensitive, did not defeat the convenience test.
7. The defendants’ pleading and disclosure challenges did not establish an appealable error. The claimants should have pleaded the basic facts of individual claims. The High Court was nevertheless entitled to order generic defences and disclosure of relevant brokerage arrangements and related documents.
8. The appellate court should not rebalance a case-management decision afresh. The defendants had not shown an identifiable flaw taking the decision outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal, maintained the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter to Birmingham County Court: [2026] EWCA Civ 831.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division allowed the appeal from HHJ Worster, held that the claims could proceed together under rule 7.3, and ordered generic defences and disclosure: [2025] EWHC 490 (KB).
• Birmingham County Court held that the omnibus claims could not conveniently be disposed of together and ordered their disaggregation.