The High Court has ruled that plaintiff substitutions in loan-related cases may be made by a “global” or “omnibus” order, provided safeguards preserve the rights of each defendant. The ruling sets conditions for such orders and says schedules should list no more than 100 actions.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the judgment on 21 October 2019 in proceedings brought by Friends First Finance by Order Emberton Finance Limited against Aidan Moloney. The application sought to substitute one plaintiff for another in those proceedings and 368 other actions listed in a solicitor’s affidavit.
The judge said separate applications and orders in every case would place a substantial administrative burden on High Court registrars. But he said administrative convenience could not decide the issue: because these applications are made without notice to defendants, their rights must be protected.
For each action in a schedule, the solicitor instructed in the matter must swear that they personally satisfied themselves there had been a valid transfer of the relevant loan or security and that valid “goodbye” and “hello” notices were sent. Supporting documents must be exhibited to the affidavit. The schedule must provide enough information to identify each action, including its record number, and must list separately cases where proceedings have been served and those issued but not served.
For each listed action, a copy of the substitution order must be served on the defendant. Written notice must explain that the relevant affidavit and exhibits are available on request, that the defendant may apply on notice to set aside the part of the order affecting them, and that they may contest the loan or security transfer at the hearing. Where proceedings have been issued but not served, those steps may be taken when the proceedings are served.
The judgment did not rule on whether a global order may substitute a plaintiff in cases where judgment has already been obtained. Justice Meenan said such applications should be made individually, but the issue did not arise in the proceedings before him.
He also held that a notice of intention to proceed is not required before an application for substitution. In his view, the notice may instead be issued in the name of the newly substituted plaintiff and served with the documents required for defendants.
The conclusion was that omnibus orders are appropriate in applications of this kind, subject to the stated conditions. The judgment sets out the governing approach; the source does not record a separate case-specific operative order substituting the plaintiff in the listed actions.