The recent March 2023 case of Angel v Black Horse Limited demonstrated another blow for access to justice for claimants. The issue being argued in this case was whether the High Court has the powers to hear and decide the claim (under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA)), or whether such a claim could only be heard by the County Court (under section 140B(4)(a)). It was found that this type of claim, could not be brought to the High Court and therefore, should be transferred to the County Court.
Angel v Black Horse Limited involved claims by over 5,000 Claimants, all represented by the same solicitors. All the Claimants bought motor vehicles from car dealers and purchased credit agreements to finance them. The claims were made on the basis that the relationship between the Claimants and the finance companies was “unfair” because some of the credit agreements were unregulated and they failed to mention relevant commission arrangements between the dealers, brokers, and finance companies.
The Defendant finance companies disputed the claim by questioning whether the High Court had the relevant jurisdiction to handle the case. The individual claims were said to be up to about £1,500 plus interest, and others for far smaller sums. The court debated whether the number of claims that were collectively brought could justify being heard in the High Court. Individually, the claims were more suited to be dealt with in the County Court, but collectively, the claims amounted to much more. The court agreed with the Defendants and concluded that unfair relationship claims in most cases are relatively low-value claims involving consumers. As such, it is better for the consumer to use a less costly court to resolve disputes.
“It would seem that the law that is designed to protect consumers and provide a clear and obvious pathway through the legal system has disintegrated over the last few years before our very eyes. From inconsistent handling of CCA-based claims by the court in Consumer Credit Act claims such as PPI, Plevin, and Car Finance (PCP) cases, where claimants are forced to pursue complicated claims through the Small Claims route that makes the cost of pursuing such claims unfeasible. We now see the opportunity to hold large financial institutions to account through group litigation in the High Court shut down too.
One has to ask, how do ordinary private individuals successfully achieve justice against large financial institutions for their corporate malfeasance in this country?”
Jamie Patton of Johnson Law Group
Generally, cases that involve higher-value financial claims are dealt with in the High Court, whereas the County Court handles small claims. One of the reasons why claimants bring claims to the High Court is that the High Court Enforcement Officers who enforce judgments have more power than County Court Bailiffs. As such, there is a higher chance of getting a favourable outcome. In addition, the High Court is better equipped to handle more complex cases. In Angel v Black Horse, even a group litigation of 5000 Claimants was not deemed to be complex enough or of high enough value to be accepted by the High Court. It is unfortunate that the Claimants were unable to find the justice they were seeking.
