header-logo header-logo

24 April 2024
Issue: 8068 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

‘Convenience’ defined in class action victory

A group of 134 litigants can use a single claim form, the Court of Appeal has confirmed in a landmark judgment

The litigants are property investors in a multi-million-pound professional negligence case against Williams & Co solicitors. The dispute concerns advice given by the solicitors regarding the claimants’ investment in Northern Powerhouse, a series of nine development projects.

The defendants applied to strike out the claim on the basis it was not ‘convenient’ for the claims to be issued in a single form, given different advice was given to different claimants at different times regarding different projects.

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a single claim form can be used to start all claims which can be ‘conveniently disposed of’ in the same proceedings’. Last year, the High Court held the ‘convenience’ test will generally be determined by the degree of commonality between the claims and the common issues of fact and law, in Abbott v MoD [2023] EWHC 1475 KB.

Handing down judgment in Morris & others v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm) [2024] EWCA Civ 376 last week, however, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls (pictured), Lord Justice Lewison and Lady Justice Falk held the claim could go ahead.

Delivering the main judgment, Sir Geoffrey said: ‘Any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to proceedings, and claimants may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.

‘The court will determine what is convenient according to the facts of every case.’

David Niven, partner, Penningtons Manches Cooper, who represents the 134 property investors, said: ‘This is a significant legal victory for claimant class action teams.

‘This decision is likely to make it easier for claimants to bring claims even where there are differences between the claims and the claimants. Crucially, the court has also made it clear that convenience does not require establishing “commonality” between the claims and claimants.

‘This will be of significant assistance to claimants and litigation funders alike, who are expected to review existing potential claims and revisit their analysis on the feasibility of bringing class actions.’

Issue: 8068 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll