David Abbott & Ors v Ministry Of Defence
[2023] EWHC 1475 (KB)
Ryan Morris & Ors v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm)
18 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 376
Court of Appeal
Many people sued the same lawyer. The lawyer argued they should have separate lawsuits. The court said it's okay for them to have one big lawsuit if their cases are similar and it's fair to everyone. The court clarified the rules, making it easier for many people with similar problems to sue together, saving time and money.
Key Facts
- •134 claimants sued Williams & Co Solicitors for breaches of duty in advising on investments in 9 development projects.
- •The Solicitors appealed the judge's refusal to strike out the claim, arguing against multiple claimants using one claim form.
- •The appeal concerned the interpretation of CPR Part 19.1 and 7.3 regarding joinder of multiple claimants.
- •The case involved analyzing the 'real progress' test from *Abbott v. Ministry of Defence* and its implications.
- •The court considered the historical context of group litigation under the RSC, particularly Order 15 rule 4.
- •The claimants argued that forcing separate claims would be financially prohibitive due to court fees.
- •The court examined whether a binding determination on all parties was necessary for multiple claimant claims.
Legal Principles
Any number of claimants may be joined in a claim (CPR 19.1). A claimant may use a single claim form for claims conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings (CPR 7.3).
CPR Part 19.1 and 7.3
The 'real progress' test from *Abbott* (whether common issues' determination constitutes real progress towards final determination of each claim) is incorrect.
Abbott v. Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB)
Claims are conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings if common questions of law or fact arise and claims arise from the same transaction (similar to O15 r4 of RSC).
Order 15 rule 4 of the RSC 1999
The court's interpretation of CPR 19.1 and 7.3 should be guided by the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost (CPR Part 1.1(1)).
CPR Part 1.1(1)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found that the Solicitors' interpretation of CPR 19.1 and 7.3 was incorrect and that the claimants' claims could be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings, based on common issues and the historical precedent of O15 r4.
*Abbott v. Ministry of Defence*’s ‘real progress’ test was rejected.
The Court found the test to be an incorrect interpretation of CPR 7.3, advocating for a flexible approach determined by the facts of each case.