Black Horse Ltd v Stuart Angel & Others: The rise of the Omnibus Claim Form and CPR Part 19 in Consumer Actions

Motor finance claims: The rise of the Omnibus Claim Form and CPR Part 19

The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Black Horse Ltd v Stuart Angel & Others represents a significant development in the ongoing motor finance commission litigation. While the case was not about whether consumers should automatically receive compensation, it tackled a crucial practical question: can thousands of consumers group their similar claims together in the same court proceedings, or must each person start a separate claim?

The Court firmly confirmed that the claims can continue together. This decision provides vital guidance on how mass consumer claims will be efficiently managed moving forward, specifically endorsing the use of omnibus claim forms under CPR Part 19.

Why move away from the traditional GLO?

Historically, when thousands of claimants shared common grievances against a single defendant, the default procedural route was a Group Litigation Order (GLO). While effective in theory, GLOs are expense, procedurally rigid and complicated to administer.

Because of these hurdles, claimant lawyers have increasingly turned to CPR Part 19 as a more agile, proportionate alternative.

Judicial reluctance to grant GLOs

The shift towards CPR Part 19 is mirrored by the courts’ increasing reluctance to grant GLOs. Judges are frequently finding that the rigid GLO superstructure is inappropriate where bespoke case management can achieve the same goals more efficiently.

The primary example of this is the High Court’s decision in Moon v Link Fund Solutions [2022] EWHC 3344 (Ch). In this case, which involved the high-profile Woodford investor group litigation, the court explicitly rejected an application for a GLO. Mr Justice Trower noted that the court’s conventional case management powers under the CPR were perfectly adequate to manage the multi-party litigation. He found that bespoke case management could achieve all the purported advantages of a GLO, such as managing common issues and streamlining information sharing without the added expense, rigid structure, and administrative burden.

This approach was similarly echoed in Abbott v Ministry of Defence (2023), where the High Court refused a GLO for military noise-induced hearing loss claims, finding that alternative management was far more efficient.

These decisions underscore a clear judicial consensus,  where the flexible powers of the CPR can efficiently resolve multi-party disputes, the heavy, expensive machinery of a GLO is often unnecessary and undesirable.

The CPR part 19 alternative and chancery guidance

Under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) Part 19, multiple claimants can be joined on a single “omnibus” claim form. The defendants in the motor finance litigation argued that each consumer should be required to bring a separate claim. However, the Court rejected these arguments, confirming that thousands of similar claims can be managed collectively within the same proceedings where they raise common issues.

This approach is heavily supported by the courts’ own administrative guidance. The Chancery Guide explicitly contemplates multi-party claims proceeding outside the strict GLO structure. It notes that if parties in a claim involving multiple claimants seek bespoke case management, such as the use of sampling or test cases, other than as part of a GLO, they should inform the court as early as possible. This highlights that the courts actively encourage creative, flexible case management for multi-party claims.

The precedent: Morris & Others v Williams & Co

The foundation for this flexible approach was firmly established in the earlier Court of Appeal decision Morris & Others v Williams & Co Solicitors.

In that case, more than 100 investors brought claims arising from the same property development scheme. The Court allowed the claims to proceed together on a single claim form because they shared important common issues, even though there were differences between the individual claimants.

The key principle extracted from both Morris and Black Horse is that where claims raise common factual or legal questions, the courts are prepared to adopt a flexible and practical approach to managing them.

Managing the claims: The role of “Lead Cases”

By adopting the CPR Part 19 procedure, the courts can effectively manage these omnibus claims through the use of “lead cases”.

Lead cases are a small number of representative claims selected to be heard first. These cases tackle common questions across the claims

While the outcome of a lead case may not automatically determine the result of every other claim, it provides a strong indication of how similar cases will be viewed by the courts. In practice, these lead cases help parties assess the strengths and weaknesses of their position and can encourage settlement discussions without every claim needing to proceed to a full trial.

Protecting claimants: Severing joint liability for adverse costs

A common concern for consumers joining a multi-party omnibus claim form is the fear of joint and several liability for adverse costs. Ordinarily, if a collective claim fails outside the structure of a formal GLO, claimants who combine to pursue a common factual case face the risk of being held jointly and severally liable for the defendant’s “common costs.” This strict principle was recently reaffirmed in Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB), highlighting that a well-resourced defendant could theoretically pursue a single consumer for the entirety of the shared legal bill.

However, the courts possess broad discretionary case management powers to protect claimants from this chilling effect. The High Court established a crucial precedent in Rowe v Ingenious Media Holdings plc [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch). In Rowe, the court ruled that in multi-party litigation involving numerous unconnected claimants, the judge can proactively sever joint liability. Instead, the court can make a “several liability order,” apportioning the risk of adverse costs on a pro-rata basis (for example, proportionate to the value of each claimant’s individual financial stake).

By replacing joint liability with several liability, the court ensures that each claimant is only ever responsible for their specific, proportionate share of the defendant’s costs, vastly reducing the financial risk of participating in mass litigation.

What this means for consumers and access to justice

One of the most notable aspects of the Black Horse judgment is the Court’s focus on access to justice. The Court recognised that many consumers do not have the same financial resources as large lending institutions.

Requiring thousands of separate claims could create significant cost and practical barriers, which the Court acknowledged might cause some consumers to abandon potentially valid claims. By allowing claims to continue together, the Court sought to ensure that access to justice is not determined simply by a party’s financial resources.

How we can help

The Cripps group action team possesses extensive expertise in advising consumers on complex financial services disputes and strategically managing multi-party litigation. We can assess the strengths of your case, explain the available routes to redress, and help you identify the most appropriate and cost-effective strategy for your circumstances.

If you would like to discuss a potential claim or explore your options, please contact the Cripps group action team for an initial discussion.