The civil courts face significant challenges with their case management systems, particularly in handling omnibus claim forms that consolidate multiple claims into a single document.
According to Mr Justice Garnham, the civil courts’ case management systems are not just limited by the convenience and capacities of the legal parties involved but also by the courts themselves. Processing issues have turned the omnibus claim form for non-freezing cold injuries (NFCI) cases against the Ministry of Defence into a repository for claims that are later transferred to a new file once they become active.
Justice Garnham highlighted the complexity that arises when a stage is reached where each case in a cohort requires individual determination. At this point, the court may be reluctant to approve an omnibus claim form due to the practical challenges, as seen in the current case. This issue has gained prominence following last year’s ruling in Abbott v Ministry of Defence, and its subsequent amendments by the Court of Appeal.
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is reviewing the function of omnibus claim forms. Justice Garnham, along with Master Davison, remarked that if it seems from the outset that claims will not be primarily resolved through trial of lead cases, this factor is crucial in determining whether to issue such a form. The convenience of omnibus forms is often short-lived, leading to administrative difficulties.
In the case at hand, initially filed by firm Hugh James in 2019 on behalf of 45 claimants, despite Senior Master Fontaine’s ruling against such joinder, two more omnibus forms followed. By a case management hearing in April 2024, the number of ongoing claims had risen starkly to 566.
Administrative hurdles were exacerbated as CE File, the digital filing system, struggled with its limited search functionality and inability to create sub-files. This situation was complicated further by the representation of the same defendant by two law firms, Keoghs and Clyde & Co, complicating document location and management.
Justice Garnham identified that, despite convenience for parties, the system’s burden affects court staff, leading to rejected submissions, a backlog, and internal discussions on improving processes. In May 2024, an order split files between the two representing law firms, requiring active claims to be associated with new court files.
Justice Garnham concluded that the overloaded omnibus claim form should not accept new claims and introduced a fresh claim form issuance limit, tentatively set at 60 claimants per form. Provided active claims align towards a common trial date, they could be managed in groups, subject to incremental limits.
The ongoing challenges with omnibus claim forms highlight the need for refinement within the courts’ case management systems to balance convenience for parties and efficiency for the court system as a whole.
