‘Convenience’ defined in class action victory

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.’