The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision allowing more than 5,000 motor finance discretionary commission arrangement claims to continue as coordinated multi-claimant proceedings in Black Horse Ltd v Angel & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 831.

The significance of this decision lies in showing that fact-sensitive consumer claims are not excluded from CPR 7.3 merely because individual assessments will be ultimately required. 

Why does this matter?

The claims concern allegations that lenders failed to make sufficient disclosure of discretionary commission arrangements, under which motor dealers could set the interest rate under the credit agreement and receive commission linked to that rate.

The central issue on appeal was whether the High Court judge had erred in exercising his discretion to allow the claims to proceed collectively under CPR 7.3. The lenders argued that claims under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are inherently fact-sensitive and require a broad assessment of all relevant circumstances to determine whether the creditor-debtor relationship is unfair. On that basis, they contended that there could be no meaningful common issues and that the claims should proceed as thousands of individual actions.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It emphasised that the procedural question under CPR 7.3 is whether there is a practical and proportionate means of managing the litigation towards its convenient disposal, taking account of the interests of the parties, the court and the court system. 

A flexible approach to collective case management

In an important observation developing the reasoning of recent authority, the Court explained that "disposal" encompasses not only the ultimate determination of claims but also the procedural journey towards that outcome. The court was therefore entitled to consider the full range of available case management tools, including common issues, disclosure and lead cases, when assessing whether multi-claimant proceedings were appropriate.

Access to justice considerations

A notable feature of the judgment is its emphasis on proportionality and access to justice.

The Court observed that many of the claims are likely to be worth around £1,000 each. Therefore, requiring thousands of individual actions would generate substantial costs and may deter claimants from pursuing claims. The Court accepted that efficient case management through multi-claimant proceedings offered the most practical route to achieving at least a measure of justice. 

What does the decision mean for motor finance litigation?

The ruling allows these motor finance discretionary commission arrangement claims to continue as coordinated multi-claimant proceedings. However, its broader significance should not be overstated, as: 

• The Court expressly cautioned that the case was an unreliable vehicle for wider guidance, given the limited scope of the appeal, the procedural history and the fact-sensitive nature of the claims;
• The appeal was narrow, concerning a case management decision, with the Court emphasising that it was not entitled to interfere without good reason;
• It is not a merits decision on motor finance unfairness;
• It is not a general endorsement for all motor finance or consumer group actions to proceed collectively.

The key takeaway is that the need for individual factual assessments does not, by itself, prevent claims from being managed collectively under CPR 7.3. Where common issues, disclosure exercises and lead cases and other case management tools may provide a practical and proportionate route to convenient disposal, collective proceedings may be appropriate notwithstanding that liability and the appropriate remedy will ultimately require individual assessment.