David Abbott & Ors v Ministry Of Defence
[2023] EWHC 1475 (KB)
Richard Neil Adams & Ors v Ministry of Defence
31 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1966 (KB)
High Court
Many ex-soldiers sued the Ministry of Defence for cold injuries. They used a 'group lawsuit' method, but it became too complicated for the court's computer system. The judge decided to tweak the group lawsuit rather than scrap it completely, to make things easier for everyone.
Key Facts
- •Claimants: Ex-military personnel with noise-induced hearing loss, NFCI, and PTSD.
- •Defendant: Ministry of Defence.
- •Proceedings initially involved omnibus Claim Forms (multiple claimants on one form) for NFCI claims.
- •Initial omnibus Claim Form (QB-2019-000555) rejected for having 45 claimants.
- •Subsequent omnibus Claim Forms (Bristol Registry) transferred to London (QB-2019-001608).
- •Lead cases resolved generic issues via a Memorandum of Agreement (matrix for liability deduction).
- •QB-2019-001608 eventually comprised 604 claims, with administrative difficulties due to CE File limitations and dual MOD representation.
- •Court considered whether the claims could conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings (CPR r.7.3).
Legal Principles
Convenience is the acid test for using a single claim form under CPR r.7.3.
Morris and Ryan & Ors -v- Williams & Co. Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376
Convenience includes the court's and court system's convenience, considering the Overriding Objective in CPR r.1.
CPR r.1; This case's judgment
Claims originally properly joined can be disaggregated if it becomes inconvenient. The court has wide case management powers (CPR r.3.1(2))
RSC O.15 r.5; CPR r.3.1(2); This case's judgment
CPR r.7.3 (using a single claim form) should be considered in conjunction with CPR r.19.1 (joinder of parties).
CPR r.7.3 and r. 19.1; This case's judgment
The three tests from Abbott v Ministry of Defence (real progress, real significance, binding effect) are not mandatory for determining convenience under CPR r.7.3.
Morris and Ryan & Ors -v- Williams & Co. Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376
Outcomes
The court decided not to fully disaggregate the NFCI claims.
While acknowledging the administrative difficulties with CE File and the de facto disaggregation already underway, the court considered the significant disruption of issuing new claim forms and the past judicial orders approving the omnibus approach. The court balanced the court's convenience and the parties' cooperation against the need to avoid duplicative work.
The court ordered that no more claims be added to the existing QB-2019-001608 file, instead setting a limit of 60 claimants per new claim form.
This limits the burden on the existing overloaded file and the court's administrative burden, while maintaining some benefits of group case management.