The Court of Appeal has endorsed the use of ‘multi-claimant’ or ‘omnibus’ claim forms to consolidate thousands of small motor finance claims, where those claims can be “conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings”.

The Case

Background

By eight claim forms, over 5,000 claimants are pursuing eight motor finance providers in the County Court, alleging inadequate disclosure of discretionary commission arrangements ("DCAs") and unfair relationships under sections 140A–140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimants did not plead facts of any individual claim and sought to have certain common issues determined first, potentially using sample claims. The circuit judge managing the claims disaggregated them into separate individual proceedings on the basis that the "convenience test" under CPR 7.3 (which enables multiple claimants to bring claims on a single claim form if their claims can be "conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings") had not been met and it was not appropriate for the claims to be pursued together.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Ritchie overturned that decision, finding that following the recent Court of Appeal decision (in Morris & Others v Williams^[1]), the approach taken by the circuit judge was too narrow. He found the convenience test had been met, and he exercised his discretion to allow the claims to be managed together, concluding that there were broad common issues and that the trial of some lead cases might result in settlements.^[2] 

The defendants were granted limited permission to appeal Ritchie J's exercise of discretion to enable the claims to be brought together and to order disclosure by the defendants. They argued that the requirement of the court to consider all circumstances in claims of this type meant that claims would turn on the fact-specific nature of each claim and that aggregating the claims would not allow for convenient collective assessment. The claimants relied on the existence of the FCA compensation scheme to support their argument that there were sufficiently common issues.

Decision

On 30 June 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, allowing the claims to proceed together. In the leading judgment, Lord Justice Coulson emphasised that the scope for intervention was limited by the grounds of the appeal and the "real caution" the Court needed to exercise when intervening in discretionary case management decisions. Coulson LJ observed that, if the claims were disaggregated, disproportionate costs of individual proceedings could prevent many claimants from pursuing their claims. He suggested that this may have been part of the defendants’ objective. In his view, separate proceedings would allow stronger claims to be settled, while weaker claims could be "run into the ground". Although he emphasised that the judgment was “very much” fact-specific and should not be treated as general guidance on multi-claimant claims, the decision indicates a continuing trend following Morris of a relatively permissive approach to omnibus claims where "convenience" is considered broadly, by reference to the specific facts of the case and what is convenient to all parties, the court and the justice system.

Discussion

Coulson LJ made a number of observations about the test of convenience under CPR 7.3 and case management. Of particular note are:

• The question is whether collective proceedings are a convenient route, not the most convenient route: Coulson LJ expressly stated that CPR 7.3 asks whether claims can be conveniently disposed of together, not whether that is the optimal procedural structure.
• Convenient “disposal” of cases includes the journey, not just the destination: Coulson LJ rejected the argument that convenience is concerned only with final determination of the claims. The court must also consider whether available case-management tools (such as common issues, disclosure and lead cases) can facilitate efficient resolution, even if there might ultimately be separate trials.
• Common issues and lead cases need not be determinative to be useful: The Court rejected the idea that common issues or lead cases must bind all claimants to be useful. Rather, recurring issues of law and fact may materially advance the resolution of a wider cohort of claims by providing persuasive guidance and encouraging settlement, notwithstanding the need for individual assessments in particular cases.
• Fact-sensitive claims are not automatically unsuitable for CPR 7.3: Coulson LJ cautioned against taking a narrow approach to "common issues of law and fact" which would enable defendants to defeat multi-claimant proceedings by pointing to factual differences between claims. Where claims are similar, arise from the same statutory provisions or give rise to the same general issues, he observed that there are likely to be common issues, even if they require "in the final act" a separate evaluation.
• Access to justice and commercial realities of litigation are relevant: Coulson LJ considered the litigation economics and the imbalance in resources between individual claimants and lenders to be relevant contextual factors in assessing convenience. Most of the individual claims were relatively low value and requiring individual claimants to pursue their own claims would likely result in a number of the claims falling away due to the disproportionate costs involved.

Coulson LJ also noted that, although the Civil Procedure Rule Committee declined to review CPR 7.3 after Morris, the growth of such claims may justify reconsideration.

Wider Motor Finance Developments

For the past two years, the FCA has been reviewing the past use of motor finance DCAs to examine whether consumers have been disadvantaged by firms’ misuse of such arrangements (see our previous Clifford Chance briefing here).

On 1 August 2025, the Supreme Court published its judgment in the linked cases of Johnson and Wrench v FirstRand Bank and Hopcraft v Close Brothers^[3] . The Court held that, in one of the cases, a lender had acted unfairly because of the quantum and undisclosed nature of the commission paid to the broker. It found that this rendered the relationship between the lender and borrower unfair. See our analysis of the decision here.

On 29 March 2026, the FCA outlined its proposed industry-wide redress scheme. See our RIFC Insights blog for our commentary on the FCA's decision to introduce a scheme, its assessment of the key considerations for the scheme and its subsequent consultation exercise.

On 2 July 2026, the FCA confirmed that the Upper Tribunal has made an order suspending parts of the motor finance schemes. Firms will not be expected to calculate or pay redress or send communications to customers about compensation owed until the Upper Tribunal has ruled on the challenges being pursued by three lenders^[4] and one consumer rights group^[5]. The FCA has acknowledged the possibility that the scheme may change shape but has emphasised its expectation for firms to be ready to take the required action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_{[1]  [2024] EWCA Civ 376.}

_{[2]  Ritchie J also made case management orders relating to the use of generic pleadings and the provision of disclosure by the defendants.}

_{[3]  [2025] UKSC 33.}

_{[4]  Volkswagen Financial Services, Mercedes Benz Financial Services and Crédit Agricole Auto Finance.}

_{[5]  Consumer Voice}