In its recent judgment in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 831, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to allow 5,000+ individuals who bought motor cars over the last 14 years to proceed together as a multi-party claim brought on a single claim form against each of the eight motor finance companies who provided them with loans to help them buy their cars.

The claimants allege that when they entered credit agreements with the defendants to facilitate their purchase of a car, they were unknowingly paying the car dealers a commission pursuant to discretionary commission arrangements between the defendants and the car dealers.

Coulson LJ (whose judgment Stuart-Smith LJ and the President of the Family Division concurred with) recognised that the claims, which were likely to be worth no more than £1,000 each, were “the tip of an iceberg” that the court system was already starting to deal with.

This topic is the subject of the FCA’s redress scheme introduced on 30 March 2026, for which the FCA estimates around 12.1 million agreements are eligible and which is currently subject to legal challenge.

Multi-party route

The decision concerned the application of CPR rule 7.3, which allows a claimant to use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. CPR rule 19.1 then allows any number of claimants or defendants to be joined as parties to a claim.

The alternative methods for dealing with multi-claimant claims of Representative Actions (CPR rules 19.8-19.20) and Group Litigation (CPR rules 19.21-19.26) are not available in the small claims track, to which these claims would otherwise be allocated.

The lower court decisions

The defendants sought to disaggregate the claims, which would mean 5,000+ claim forms, arguing that the test for convenience in rule 7.3 had not been met as there were no common issues and each case would turn on its own facts. The circuit judge (David Worster) agreed, applying the Divisional Court’s decision in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (KB).

Ritchie J in the High Court concluded that the circuit judge had erred in principle by following Abbott in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Morris & Others v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376 which had been handed down by the time of the appeal to the High Court – and had held that the test of convenience under rule 7.3 was very broad and may potentially have been restricted by some of the observations in Abbott – and re-exercised the discretion. He found that, on the basis of nine separate factors, the convenience test had been met, stressing the existence of “broad common issues” and the importance of some lead cases being tried out in full because of the likelihood that such a process would lead to widescale settlement.

The Court of Appeal decision

The appeal was limited to consideration of whether Ritchie J was wrong in the re-exercise of his discretion, and further limited by the high hurdle that must be met before the Court of Appeal will interfere with a case management decision of a High Court judge. As a result, and as Coulson LJ acknowledged, the result of this appeal will not be a particularly useful vehicle for statements of principle or guidance concerning multi-claimant claims.

Nevertheless, Coulson LJ made several overarching points that will be of interest to future claimants seeking to rely on CPR rule 7.3.

The test of convenience must be considered by reference to the interests of all parties, the court and the court system. Lord Justice Coulson noted that the Court had to have regard to the “commercial reality”: if there were 5,000+ separate claims with 5,000+ separate hearings, it would be unlikely to happen due to the disproportionate nature of the costs. Although the defendants’ opposition was commercially understandable, the Court considered that it was ultimately unrealistic.

Common issues of law and fact are a relevant factor in any consideration of convenient disposal under CPR rule 7.3. Multi-claimant proceedings will probably satisfy the convenience test if there are common issues which will bind all or most of the claimants, although that is not the only factor.

Commonality of an issue of law or fact does not require that the determination of that issue will bind everyone in the multi-claimant claim. Common issues can include matters that are fact-specific – i.e., which require separate factual assessment. If the claims are very similar in nature, arise from the same statutory provisions and give rise to the same general issues, there are likely to be common issues of law and fact. It is simply that those claims may ultimately require separate evaluation.

Coulson LJ agreed with Ritchie J that there were common issues of law and fact here (albeit he was sceptical about the utility of the common issues Ritchie J had identified).

In most types of multi-claimant or group litigation case, lead cases will usually be identified, which (as has been summarised in Lancaster v Peacock [2020] EWHC 1231 (Ch) at paragraphs 2 and 3) is: first, to ensure that common issues can be decided in such a way as to bind all claimants; and second, to decide other factual and legal issues where the decision will not necessarily bind other claimants but is likely to give a very clear indication of the way that their cases will be decided if tried, with the expected consequence that the parties will then be able to settle the remaining claims.

Coulson LJ agreed with Ritchie J that the trial of lead cases would be a sensible step here, which was a clear pointer towards the convenient disposal of the claims under rule 7.3. That the results in lead cases would not be binding because each case requires a decision on the facts was not something that weighed heavily in the balance when considering convenience under rule 7.3. What is important is whether the lead cases would produce persuasive results. Here, assuming lead cases were carefully chosen to illustrate the extreme fact patterns of undisclosed commission in the claims, then the results would inevitably be commercially persuasive and would have a direct effect on the settlement of the other claims.

Coulson LJ also noted that what matters is whether a multi-party claim form is a convenient means by which the proceedings may be disposed of, not the most convenient way. In addition (drawing on Abbott and Morris), rule 7.3 requires that a common disposal, rather than a separate disposal, would be convenient, although that does not require a single final trial hearing to be possible or practicable.

Coulson LJ ended his judgment by encouraging the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to review rule 7.3, which the CPRC had elected not to do two years ago.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this article further, please contact Jonathan Pagan.