High Court confirms 5,800 motor finance claimants can use omnibus claim forms and do not need to issue separate claim forms

The High Court has held that 5,800 claims relating to discretionary commission arrangements in motor finance broker cases can be brought using omnibus claim forms, overturning a district judge's decision which would have required each claimant to issue a separate claim form or have its claim struck out: Angel v Black Horse Ltd [2025] EWHC 490 (KB).

These claims relate to whether and in what circumstances motor finance brokers had a discretion to vary the commission they received and any consequential additional interest charged by lenders to customers, and whether (and to what extent) such arrangements were necessarily unfair pursuant to s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Such claims form part of a broader context and backdrop of cases progressing through the courts concerning alleged secret commissions charged by brokers for financial products. The Supreme Court is currently hearing an appeal against Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282 (considered here) relating to car finance, which is likely to have significant implications for any business model involving the payment of commissions to third parties.

The present decision shows how the courts will approach the question of whether s.140A claims can be brought using a single or "omnibus" claim form, and managed together, or whether they will have to proceed separately.

While each case will turn on its own facts and circumstances, the decision suggests that the threshold for allowing omnibus claims is lower than for a Group Litigation Order (GLO), with the court having a very broad discretion to determine whether claims can conveniently be disposed of in the same proceedings. Applying Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376 (considered in our previous blog post here), there is no separate, exclusionary test of whether a determination of common issues will be binding on the other claims, or of real significance to them, or constitute real progress toward their determination.

The decision is of particular interest in finding that claims alleging an unfair relationship under s.140A were suitable for omnibus disposal, despite the fact that in determining the question of fairness the court must have regard to all relevant circumstances. The court was satisfied that omnibus case management would assist in the choice of lead cases to determine both broad and specific common issues, with decisions in those cases being at least persuasive in the other cases and facilitating settlements of them. Overall, it would be more convenient and better serve the overriding objective than requiring separate claims.

For further information, please see our Litigation blog post.