header-logo header-logo

‘Convenience’ defined in class action victory

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll