Angel, Green and others (Respondents) v Black Horse Limited and Close Brothers Limited (Appellants)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0154

Parties

Appellant(s)

Black Horse Limited and Close Brothers Limited

Respondent(s)

Stuart Angel, Peter Green and Others

Issue

Can multiple consumer claims concerning the application of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 be conveniently disposed of in a single set of proceedings commenced by a multi-claimant claim form pursuant to CPR 7.3?

Facts

In November 2022, over 5,000 individuals brought claims against the Appellants and six other motor finance companies who had provided loans to the claimants to help them buy their cars. The proposed appeal only concerns those claims brought by the Respondents (a total of 1,615 claimants), each of whom had entered into credit agreements with one of the Appellants to finance their vehicle purchase. The claims against the Appellants were brought on a single multi-claimant claim form and allege that the relationship arising from the credit agreements was unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act, due to the non-disclosure of discretionary commission arrangements between the Appellants and the relevant dealer or broker who sold the vehicle. No facts have been pleaded by the Respondents in relation to any individual transactions. At first instance, the circuit judge concluded that the test for whether all claims “can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings” under CPR 7.3 had not been met, and thus it was not appropriate for the claimants to pursue their claims by way of multi-claimant claim forms. On appeal, the High Court judge concluded that the circuit judge had erred in principle and re-exercised the discretion. He found that the convenience test had been met, given the broad common issues and the importance of some lead cases being tried out in full, and he proceeded to make case management directions as to pleadings disclosure. The Appellants were subsequently granted permission to appeal on the sole ground that the High Court judge had failed to re-exercise the discretion properly. On 30 June 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and remitted the case to the County Court, concluding that the High Court judge was entitled to make the case management directions that he did. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

15 October 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top