Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) (16 June 2023)

Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) (16 June 2023)

CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1 do not require each claimant to issue a separate claim form where claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The test is one of convenience and commonality of issues, not the number of claimants or the feasibility of a single trial. Master Davison erred in concluding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1475 (KB)
Parties
Claimants / Appellants: David Abbott and others; Defendant / Respondent: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (king's Bench Division) Appeal From Master Davison's Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Case Management, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 7.3 and 19.1, Group Litigation, Limitation
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Joinder of Parties Case Management Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 7.3 and 19.1 Group Litigation Limitation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Abbott and others

Claimants / Appellants

Ministry of Defence

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (king's Bench Division) Appeal From Master Davison's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1 permit multiple claimants to issue a single claim form for claims that can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the use of an omnibus claim form by 3,500+ claimants was permissible under the CPR
  3. 3 Whether Master Davison was correct to require each claimant to issue a separate claim form

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1 do not require each claimant to issue a separate claim form where claims can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The test is one of convenience and commonality of issues, not the number of claimants or the feasibility of a single trial. Master Davison erred in concluding otherwise; the use of an omnibus claim form was permissible in this litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Master Davison set aside
  • The claims may proceed under the omnibus claim form as originally issued and amended