A law firm being sued for alleged negligence has again failed to have the claim thrown out on the basis that a single claim form was used by all 134 litigants.

The multi-million-pound action centres on nine development projects promoted by Northern Powerhouse Development Limited between 2017 and 2020. Northern Powerhouse nominated the solicitors to act for and advise potential investors. The claimants allege that the firm failed to warn of the risks of completion not taking place and the potential loss of investment deposits.

In Ryan Morris & Ors v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm), Williams & Co argued it is not permissible under the civil procedure rules for multiple claimants to bring claims in one claim form and one set of proceedings. 

Last July the High Court dismissed an application by the firm, on the basis of Abbott v. Ministry of Defence,  to have the case dismissed on the grounds that solicitor negligence claims are inherently individual and raise no common issues. The firm appealed, arguing that the words of CPR part 19.1 and 7.3 ‘severely restrict the situations in which numerous claimants can bring separate claims in one claim form’.

Vos-Dec-2021

Sir Geoffrey Vos, MR

Dismissing the challenge in the Court of Appeal, Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, with whom Lord Justice Lewison and Lady Justice Falk agreed, said the ‘questionable nature of the solicitors’ preferred construction is demonstrated by the fact that they at first conceded in oral argument that the words “[a] claimant” in 7.3 could be read under section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 as including the plural, before retracting that concession upon realising that it went some way towards defeating their primary argument’.

He added: ‘Their initial concession was obviously appropriate. The meaning of the word “claim” in 19.1 is equally clear. It is true that the word “claim” is used elsewhere in the CPR to mean a cause of action, but it would make a nonsense of 19.1 if it meant that in that rule.’

The judge said it was not accepted in this case that ‘it is inconvenient or unfair for the claimants’ claims to be grouped together in one form’. However, he stressed that ‘defendants to group actions initiated by a single claim form may face potential unfairness in the absence of active case management’.

The ruling emphasised that ‘nothing in this judgment should be taken as casting doubt on the actual determination in Abbott’, and the MR praised group litigation orders as a ‘very useful and desirable procedure in many cases’. However, he recommended that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee ‘have another look’ at the current provisions relating to multiple claimants using a single form to see ’whether the existing rules are working well’.