Judgment holds that c5,000 motor finance claims against various defendants meet the 'convenience' test in CPR r.7.3.

Published: 11 August 2026
Authors: Mahesh Vara & Claire Kershaw

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by various lender Defendants against a High Court decision permitting c5,000 motor finance claims to proceed by way of multi-party ‘omnibus’ claim forms.  While this is a case management decision specific to its facts, it will nonetheless be of interest to parties engaged in similar disputes.

Background

The Claimants all purchased motor vehicles with the assistance of finance provided by the Defendants.  The Claimants claim repayment of monies paid by them under relevant credit agreements on the basis they gave rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) due to alleged undisclosed commissions paid by the Defendants to the relevant car dealers.

The claims were issued in the County Court in 2022 by way of 8 Claim Forms, grouping the claims against each of the Defendants.  Generic Particulars of Claim were served pleading the overarching allegation that the Defendants’ failure to disclose commission agreements between them and the car dealers was a breach of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook and meant that every relationship between the Claimants and Defendants was unfair.

The Defendants sought to disaggregate the claims, arguing that determination of an unfair relationship was entirely fact specific.

At first instance the County Court agreed, finding that the convenience test under CPR r.7.3 had not been met.  Following the Divisional Court’s judgment in Abbott¹, the circuit judge concluded he was not satisfied that “there were common issues of sufficient significance that their determination would constitute real progress towards the final determination of each claim in a set of claims”.

The Claimants appealed. However, before the appeal hearing had taken place, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Morris² an unrelated professional negligence case in which the use of an omnibus claim form was also being challenged.  In Morris, the Court of Appeal concluded the test set out in Abbott was too restrictive.  While the factors identified in Abbott may be relevant to the question of convenience under r.7.3, they should not operate as exclusionary rules.  What is ‘convenient’ is a matter for the Court’s discretion according to the facts of the case.

Morris was plainly going to influence the High Court’s approach in these the present proceedings, and so it did. The High Court judge essentially concluded that, since Abbott had been overturned by Morris, the approach taken by the circuit judge could not stand, and that he was entitled to re-exercise his discretion on the question of convenience.  He identified³ 9 separate factors to consider, and on analysis found that the vast majority supported the convenience test having been met.  He therefore allowed the appeal and gave directions for the Defendants to serve generic Defences, and to provide certain disclosure.

The Defendants sought permission to appeal on 4 grounds.  Permission was granted on the fourth only, namely (in short) that the Judge had failed to re-exercise the discretion properly.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal (unanimously) dismissed the appeal.

The judgment addresses 5 different aspects of the Judge’s exercise of discretion.  The key points can be summarised as follows:

Unfairness

• there was some criticism of the Judge’s approach insofar as he identified, as part of the common issues exercise, cases where (in his view) there was “a very clear case of unfairness”. This went against numerous authorities, including Johnson⁴, establishing that unfairness is an entirely fact-specific inquiry.  This point did not, however, go to the heart of the Judge’s judgment.

Common issues

• the Court reaffirmed that “[c]ommonality of issue is different to whether the result of an issue will be binding on everyone”.  Claims which are very similar in nature are likely to give rise to common issues of law and fact, even if they require separate evaluation “in the final act”.
• while the Court was sceptical as to the utility of the two “broad common issues” identified by the Judge, it could not say that he was wrong, in the exercise of his discretion, to conclude that there were some common issues and that that was relevant to the question of convenience.

Lead cases

• the Court rejected the submission that it wasn’t enough for results in lead cases to be persuasive - as opposed to binding - to point towards convenience.  The Court considered that even where claims are fact-sensitive, it would be surprisingly uncommercial and contrary to common sense not to extrapolate the results as part of considering remaining claims.
• the Court agreed with the Judge that trial of lead cases would plainly be a sensible step and a “clear pointer” towards convenience.  Disclosure of the brokerage agreements, as ordered by the Judge, would assist in identifying lead cases through the usual method.

Remedy

• the Court rejected the criticism that the Judge had failed to consider remedy in his reasoning, observing that questions of remedy always turn on the individual facts of each case, but this was “manifestly not a reason to find that the convenience test under r.7.3 had not been made out”.

The case management directions

• while the Court was doubtful that the provision of generic Defences would particularly progress matters, it could not say that the Judge was wrong to require them; it was consistent with the view he had formed about common issues and it would be more cost effective than pleading +5,000 Defences individually
• as for the disclosure required from the Defendants, the Court recognised the burden this placed on them, but noted it was an inevitable part of responding to these claims (however formulated), rather than a function of the Judge’s order. The documents were necessary for the inquiry into unfairness which the Defendants urged be undertaken

Key takeaways

Due to the limited scope of the appeal (on one ground only, against a case management decision), “the result cannot easily be extrapolated into setting out any new or wider principles to be followed” in other cases on the question of convenience.

It can nonetheless be added to the growing list of authorities (going in various directions) from which parties on all sides may seek to draw analogies and/or distinctions as against their facts.  It clearly illustrates the generous ambit of the courts’ discretion in relation to case management and confirms, subject to any contrary finding by the Supreme Court, that even cases involving highly fact-sensitive matters such as the assessment of unfairness under the 1974 Act are not inherently unsuitable for omnibus proceedings.

The Court did however note that the effect on court resources is relevant to the question of convenience and suggested data including lost fee revenue be compiled by HMCTS.  It also gave a clear nod to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to revisit its post-Morris decision⁵ that no amendment of either r.7.3 or r.19.1 was needed.  This may potentially form part of a wider review of Part 19 which the CPRC has previously indicated would be added to its future work programme.  It is also worth noting the Law Commission’s consideration of a potential new consumer class actions regime.

One thing is for certain: potential parties to large group claims should expect plenty of further developments as to how such claims should be managed.

¹ Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (KB)
² Morris & Others v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376
³ At paragraph 89
⁴ Hopcraft and another v Close Brothers Ltd; Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (t/a MotoNovo Finance); Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd; (London Branch) (t/a MotoNovo Finance) (Rev1) [2025] UKSC 33 (01 August 2025)
⁵ Recorded in the minutes of its meeting on 5 July 2024