Richard Neil Adams & Ors v Ministry of Defence
[2024] EWHC 1966 (KB)
David Abbott & Ors v Ministry Of Defence
16 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1475 (KB)
High Court
Imagine lots of soldiers suing the army for bad hearing. A judge said each soldier needed a separate lawsuit, but a higher court said they can all sue together because their cases have many things in common. The important part isn't whether they can all have one giant trial, but if dealing with the common parts of their cases all at once is helpful and efficient.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Master Davison's order requiring 3,449 claimants to issue separate claim forms in noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
- •Original claim form (Abbott et al v MoD) included 3,559 claimants, later amended to 3,450.
- •Claims related to noise-induced hearing loss suffered during military service (M-NIHL).
- •Master Davison ruled that the omnibus claim form was impermissible under CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1.
- •The MoD did not initially raise the issue of the omnibus claim form; the Master raised it sua sponte.
- •Subsequent to the order, 3,017 claimants issued new forms, 48 claims were struck out, and 384 claims were settled/discontinued/etc.
- •The Order caused significant administrative burden and cost for Hugh James solicitors and the court office (overpayment of court fees).
- •The parties had agreed on a case management approach involving lead cases, similar to a Group Litigation Order (GLO).
- •The appeal focused on the interpretation of CPR 7.3 (single claim form for conveniently disposable claims) and CPR 19.1 (joinder of claimants).
Legal Principles
Any number of claimants or defendants may be joined as parties to a claim.
CPR 19.1
A claimant may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.
CPR 7.3
The test for joinder is whether the several claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.
The White Book (2022 edition), ¶7.3.5
In a claim brought by two or more claimants, claimants must act together to present a joint case.
The White Book (2023 edition) n.19.1.1, Lewis v Daily Telegraph (No.2) [2064] 2 Q.B. 601
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Master Davison erred in interpreting CPR 7.3 by requiring the possibility of a single trial for all claims. The court held that the 'convenience' test focuses on whether common disposal is useful or helpful in the interests of justice, considering common issues of fact and their potential impact on individual claims. Sufficient commonality existed here to justify a single claim form.