Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd [2025] EWHC 490 (KB) (04 March 2025)

Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd [2025] EWHC 490 (KB) (04 March 2025)

The judge at first instance applied the wrong legal test for severance of claims by following the exclusionary approach in Abbott, which has been overruled by the Court of Appeal in Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors. The correct test under CPR r.7.3 and r.19.1 is whether the claims can conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings, considering all relevant factors, without exclusionary rules. Since the judge applied the wrong test, the appeal must be allowed and the order for severance set aside.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 490 (KB)
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Stuart Angel and 1379 others; Defendant/respondent: Black Horse Limited; Claimants/appellants: Peter Green and 234 others; Defendant/respondent: Close Brothers Limited; Claimants/appellants: Sean Hallsor and 28 others; Defendant/respondent: Aldermore Bank PLC; Claimants/appellants: Carl Thomas and 1545 others; Defendant/respondent: Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited; Claimants/appellants: Jose Fernandes and 177 others; Defendant/respondent: Startline Motor Finance Limited; Claimants/appellants: Andrew Barlow and 180 others; Defendant/respondent: Vauxhall Finance PLC; Defendant/respondent: Stellantis Financial Services UK Limited; Claimants/appellants: Richard Bateson and 1650 others; Defendant/respondent: BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited; Claimants/appellants: Peter Lamond and 1001 others; Defendant/respondent: Motonovo Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (case Management Decision) / High Court (king's Bench Division) Appeal From Birmingham County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Omnibus Claim Forms, Case Management, Joinder and Severance, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974, Disclosure of Commissions, Multi Party Litigation
Civil Procedure Consumer Credit Financial Regulation Omnibus Claim Forms Case Management Joinder and Severance Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 Disclosure of Commissions +1 more

Case Brief

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Angel and 1379 others

Claimants/appellants

Black Horse Limited

Defendant/respondent

Peter Green and 234 others

Claimants/appellants

Close Brothers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Sean Hallsor and 28 others

Claimants/appellants

Aldermore Bank PLC

Defendant/respondent

Carl Thomas and 1545 others

Claimants/appellants

Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Jose Fernandes and 177 others

Claimants/appellants

Startline Motor Finance Limited

Defendant/respondent

Andrew Barlow and 180 others

Claimants/appellants

Vauxhall Finance PLC

Defendant/respondent

Stellantis Financial Services UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Richard Bateson and 1650 others

Claimants/appellants

BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Peter Lamond and 1001 others

Claimants/appellants

Motonovo Finance Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (case Management Decision) / High Court (king's Bench Division) Appeal From Birmingham County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ordering severance of claims and requiring individual claim forms instead of allowing omnibus claim forms under CPR r.7.3 and r.19.1
  2. 2 What is the correct test for joinder/severance of multi-party claims under CPR r.7.3 and r.19.1 post-Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the wrong legal test for severance of claims by following the exclusionary approach in Abbott, which has been overruled by the Court of Appeal in Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors. The correct test under CPR r.7.3 and r.19.1 is whether the claims can conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings, considering all relevant factors, without exclusionary rules. Since the judge applied the wrong test, the appeal must be allowed and the order for severance set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for severance of claims set aside
  • Directions to be given for further case management in accordance with the correct legal test under CPR r.7.3 and r.19.1