Stuart Angel and others v Black Horse Limited: An Imbalance of Financial Power?

This case has become a focal point in UK consumer credit litigation. It’s not just another dispute over car finance agreements; it’s a case that has been appealed all the way to Court of Appeal and could reshape how courts handle Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) 'unfair relationship' claims under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (sections 140A–C). The judgement is due to be handed down on 30^th June 2026.

The Court of Appeal is being asked, amongst other things, how PCP claims can be brought: as a single claim or whether they can be grouped together as a “Multi-Claimant Claim” (“MCC”) and heard in one go in the High Court . These have also been referred to as “Omnibus Claims”.

The High Court had previously ruled that multi-party claims involving common issues can be managed together. The defendant, Black Horse Limited, one of the largest car finance companies in the country, appealed that decision.

Background

Personal Contract Purchase (PCP)agreements are a popular way for consumers to finance cars. However, many of these agreements involve undisclosed commissions paid by lenders to dealers, often without the customer’s knowledge. Claimants argue that this creates an 'unfair relationship' under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). In Angel -v- Black Horse, over 5,800 claimants brought claims against eight motor finance companies in the Birmingham County Court under s.140A CCA for the undisclosed and allegedly unfair commissions they paid to car dealers.

The High Court found for the Claimants and accepted that it was possible for claimants to bring similar claims against the same defendant all grouped together as an MCC.

In paragraph 70, the judge hearing the case in the High Court, Mr Justice Ritchie held that the factors to be considered in deciding if an MCC was appropriate included, amongst other things, whether all claims arise from the same cause of action and whether the issues complained of are common or broad common issues. These factors weigh in favour of flexible MCCs. Mr Justice Richie took the view that an MCC would help to select the appropriate lead cases to determine the common, broad and specific issues, and that the significance of the lead case decisions would be a useful means of ensuring the main disputes between the parties can be dealt with efficiently.

What could it mean for PCP claimants if they are successful, and what are the broader justice implications?

The decision could have a significant impact on UK multi-party litigation involving undisclosed commission claims against lenders. If upheld, it would open the door to claimants being able to group together to take on the banks for their financial malfeasance.

With the backdrop of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Car Finance Mis-selling Redress Scheme on hold whilst it fends off challenges from banks and claimant groups alike, a favourable decision for claimants in this case would also pave the way for them to bring cases in the Court without having to wait on the outcome of the challenges that are likely to delay the launch of any redress scheme until well into 2027.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/490

‍