High Court Ruling on Omnibus Claim Forms: key takeaways

The High Court’s Ruling in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 490 (QB): Implications for Motor Finance Litigation

The High Court has handed down an important decision in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 490 (QB), addressing the use of ‘omnibus’ claim forms in litigation concerning undisclosed discretionary commission payments made to dealers/brokers in relation to motor finance agreements. This ruling is particularly relevant given the ongoing FCA review into motor finance commission payments and the upcoming Supreme Court appeal listed to take place on 1-3 April 2025.

Key Issues in the Case

The claimants, a group of over 5,800 consumers, have brought claims against multiple motor finance lenders, alleging that their finance agreements were subject to undisclosed and unfair discretionary commission arrangements between the lenders, and dealers/brokers selling motor vehicles to them, contrary to section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

These claims were issued using eight omnibus claim forms, grouping claimants together based on the lender involved in advancing the funds to purchase the vehicles. The core allegation is that motor finance companies had arrangements with brokers or dealers that allowed the dealers/brokers to set interest rates payable under the terms of the agreements and in doing so this led to increased commission payments made to the dealers/brokers, as a result. A practice the claimants argue was not disclosed to them when entering into the finance agreements rendering the relationship between them and the lenders unfair.

The case involves a procedural dispute over whether these claims could proceed collectively via omnibus claim forms, or whether each claimant needed to issue separate claim forms. Requiring individual claims would make litigation more costly and complex for claimants and could prevent them from recovering legal costs if their claims are allocated to the small claims track due to their individual value.

The High Court’s Decision

Mr Justice Ritchie ruled that the omnibus claim forms could be used, overturning the case management decisions made by HHJ Worster (“the Judge”), at first instance, requiring each claimant to issue a separate claim form as the Judge had utilised the tests from Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] 1 WLR 4002 which, whilst binding on the Judge at the time of his decision, had been overruled as declared as wrong by the Court of Appeal in Morris. The claims were remitted t back to the Judge for case management under the omnibus claim forms. The court reasoned that:

• CPR 7.3 and 19.1 allows multiple claims to be pursued in one claim form if they can be conveniently disposed of together.
• The claims all involved single defendant claims which weighed in favour of the use of omnibus claim forms.
• There were 5,800 claimants which weighed in favour of the use of omnibus claim forms.
• The pleaded claims relate to the same or similar matters involving broad common allegations and with each claim brought under sections 140A and B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
• Each claim concerned the same cause of action.
• The claims concern broad common issues and within those are likely to be many specific common issues across all the claims and some common issues specific to bundles of claims, which weighed in favour of the use of omnibus claim forms.
• It is very likely that the specific claims will raise common issues relating to facts and matters and law meaning omnibus disposal will assist in the appropriate choice of lead cases to determine the common broad and specific issues (to be determined later). Separate claims would make choosing lead cases less likely (or not likely at all as the Judge envisaged) and the significance of lead case decisions would at least be persuasive.
• The omnibus route would favour access to justice for those claimants with small claims track and fast track claims as there is an imbalance of financial power between individual claimants and the defendants.
• Whilst the omnibus route disadvantaged the defendants due to many of the claims on their own being small claims, there may be an overall saving in costs due to the increased prospects of settlement following lead cases being tried.
• Disclosure will be more focussed with the omnibus route and far better timed.
• Although court fees will be lost, fee income is not a concern for judges.
• CE File issues, whilst a concern, could be ameliorated by allocating individual case numbers to individual claims once lead cases are selected.
• Fewer judge hours will be required for the omnibus route in both trials and CMCs than for the separate claim route.
• If expert evidence is required to show lending rates at the time for similar car finance, or for credit status, expert evidence in the omnibus claims would be common whereas in separate claims it might not be allowed in small claims and could be disproportionately expensive in a single fast track claim.
• Separate disposal will lead to conflicting decisions.

The judgment of Richie J aligns with recent Court of Appeal guidance provided in Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376, which clarified the approach to be taken when considering the rules governing the use of omnibus claim forms – CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1.

Why This Case Matters

1. Links to the FCA Review and Supreme Court Appeal

This decision comes against the backdrop of increasing regulatory scrutiny into the use of discretionary commission arrangements in motor finance. The FCA is currently reviewing historical motor finance commission arrangements, and the Supreme Court is set to rule on similar issues in April 2025 (Johnson, Wrench & Hopcraft v FirstRand Bank & Close Brothers). The High Court’s decision in Angel highlights that where multiple claims involve common issues that can be conveniently disposed of together, then an omnibus claim form is a permissible route for would-be claimants to utilise.

2. Implications for Consumers

The ruling paves the way for large-scale consumer claims in financial services litigation to be brought collective using omnibus claim forms. Claimants seeking redress for undisclosed commissions may now be able to more readily access legal representation because law firms will be more ready and able to take on cases that may not have been commercially viable for them to take on individually. Not least because the decision may tempt more providers of litigation funding into entering the market.

3. Implications for Lenders and the Financial Sector

For motor finance companies and lenders, this ruling significantly increases the immediate risk of mass claims being brought collectively. However, it does not address liability issues and/or concerns—especially given the pending Supreme Court appeal brought by Close Brothers and Firstrand Bank Limited (also involved in Angel) – which may shape how discretionary commission claims are treated in the future.

Looking Ahead: What Comes Next?

This case is a reminder that procedural rules can significantly impact how financial services disputes are litigated. With the FCA’s review ongoing and the Supreme Court set to provide authoritative guidance in April 2025, lenders, brokers, and claimants should watch developments closely.