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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll