The High Court decision in Angel & Others v Black Horse Limited & Others [2025] EWHC 490 (KB) has provided important judicial clarity on using omnibus claim forms in multi-party litigation.
Simon Ellis, Partner and Head of our Military team, who dealt with the issue of the omnibus claim form in the Abbott claim at first instance and on appeal, explores this case further, looking at the background, reasoning, and practical implications for solicitors handling multi-claimant actions.
The case, decided by Mr Justice Ritchie, confirms that multiple claimants raising common issues can issue a single claim form under CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1, overturning an earlier case management decision that would have required individual claim forms. In doing so, Angel endorses the approach previously set out in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] 1 WLR 4002 and aligns with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376.
Background and issues in the Angel case
The Angel case arose from claims by over 5,800 consumers against multiple motor finance providers. The claimants alleged that undisclosed discretionary commissions (DCs) paid to brokers or car dealers constituted an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimants’ solicitors issued eight omnibus claim forms, grouping claimants by the lender with generic particulars of claim (POC), alleging common legal and factual issues.
At first instance, HHJ Worster in the Birmingham County Court ordered severance, requiring each claimant to issue a separate claim form, citing procedural concerns and the need for individualized assessments of unfairness. The claimants appealed, arguing that severance was inconsistent with the overriding objective and the principles established in Abbott.
The High Court’s reasoning
Mr Justice Ritchie allowed the appeal, concluding that the original severance order applied the wrong test by relying on the Divisional Court’s reasoning in Abbott, which was later overruled in Morris. The key findings were:
- CPR 7.3 and 19.1 Allow Omnibus Claim Forms: The court reaffirmed that a single claim form can be used where claims can be ‘conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.’ There is no exclusionary requirement that the claims must be identical or that decisions in lead cases must be binding on all claimants.
- Common Issues Justify Omnibus Management: The claimants identified broad common issues, including (i) whether the failure to disclose discretionary commissions breached regulatory requirements, and (ii) whether the lenders were liable for brokers’ non-disclosure as agents under section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act. While individualized assessments of unfairness were necessary, case management could effectively determine preliminary issues in lead cases.
- Significance of Decisions in Lead Cases: Contrary to the lower court’s finding, Mr Justice Ritchie held that decisions on common issues in lead cases would be at least persuasive, if not binding, on subsequent claims. This would facilitate case resolution by reducing duplication and inconsistencies.
- Overriding Objective and Procedural Efficiency: The High Court emphasized that requiring over 5,800 individual claim forms would not serve the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. The omnibus approach allows for early disclosure, efficient case management, and streamlined determination of common issues.
Endorsement of the Abbott approach
The Angel decision builds upon and endorses the case management principles outlined in Abbott, where the Divisional Court permitted a single claim form for multiple military noise-induced hearing loss claims. In both cases, the courts recognized that multi-party claims do not necessarily require a Group Litigation Order (GLO) and that procedural efficiency must be balanced with fairness to defendants.
Notably, Angel clarifies that while Abbott applied a stricter ‘real progress’ test (requiring common issues to be determinative of multiple claims), Morris confirmed a broader, more flexible interpretation of CPR 7.3. The High Court’s reasoning in Angel aligns with Morris, ensuring that common issues can be determined within an omnibus claim form framework without needing to meet rigid exclusionary tests.
Practical implications for solicitors handling multi-claimant actions
The ruling in Angel provides valuable guidance for solicitors handling multi-claimant actions, particularly in consumer finance and military civil claims. The key takeaways include:
- Strategic Use of Omnibus Claim Forms: Where common issues exist, claimants can issue a single claim form under CPR 7.3 and 19.1 rather than pursuing separate claims or a GLO.
- Case Management Flexibility: Courts can structure proceedings to determine common issues first, allowing for early settlement or streamlining of subsequent individual assessments.
- Defendants’ Procedural Challenges: Defendants opposing omnibus claim forms on severance grounds will now face a higher threshold, needing to show genuine inconvenience rather than relying on formalistic objections.
For practitioners involved in group litigation, Angel reinforces the viability of the omnibus claim form approach, offering a more efficient and cost-effective route for resolving claims with shared legal and factual foundations.
