Multi-district litigation and its Georgian analogue
Multi-district litigation is an institution of United States court practice, where homogeneous cases pending in different district courts are transferred to a single court. Georgia's Civil Procedure Code has no institution of that name — its function is performed by the consolidation of cases: the court may hear homogeneous and legally related cases together, in one proceeding. This page explains that mechanism under Articles 86, 87 and 182 of the Code. The use of these instruments protects not only procedural economy but also the uniformity of decisions, which matters especially in numerous disputes resting on one set of grounds.
Joining claims in one action
Under the first part of Article 182, the claimant may join in one claim several claims within the jurisdiction of that court against the same respondent, regardless of whether the claims rest on the same grounds. One case thereby carries a whole block of one injured party's claims, saving time and cost.
Under the second and third parts, the judge receiving the statement of claim may sever one or several of the joined claims into a separate proceeding where separate consideration is more expedient — this applies both to claims joined by one claimant and to claims brought by several claimants or against several respondents. The decision to sever rests on the same criterion of expediency, so when drafting the claim the claimant should itself assess which claims are procedurally coherent to hear together. Joinder and severance are thus opposing directions of a single instrument: the claimant assembles the claims together, and the judge corrects the configuration by the criterion of expediency.
Practical experience shows that a correctly composed claim resolves the dispute considerably faster: the court assembles the full picture in one process and shapes the decision for all the claims at once.
The value of consolidation lies in the court answering the same legal question once and uniformly: the evidence is assembled in one case, the parties are heard in the same proceeding, and the risk of divergent decisions disappears. Yet consolidation is admissible only where the cases are genuinely homogeneous and legally related — otherwise separate consideration is more expedient.
Consolidation on the court's own initiative
The Georgian analogue of multi-district consolidation lies in the fourth part of Article 182: where several homogeneous and legally related cases are pending before the court, involving the same or different parties, the court may — on its own initiative or on a party's motion — consolidate them into one proceeding for joint hearing, if consolidation leads to a faster and more correct examination of the dispute. A party’s motion to consolidate should be reasoned as well: it should show why the cases are homogeneous and legally connected and how consolidation will speed up the examination.
The judge to whom a motion to consolidate is addressed joins a case pending in his own proceedings with a case pending in his own or another judge's proceedings, and issues a reasoned ruling on the matter — the decision must be explained and substantiated.
Joinder of claims and consolidation of cases complement each other: the former is in the claimant's hands when drafting the claim, the latter in the court's hands over cases already filed. Together they achieve what multi-district consolidation does in other systems: a procedural frame proportionate to, and unified for, the scale of the dispute.
Grounds of co-participation and the parties' rights
Under Article 86, a claim may be brought jointly by several claimants or against several respondents where the subject of the claim is a common right, the claims derive from the same grounds, or the claims are of the same kind regardless of their grounds and subject.
Article 87 then lays down the rules: co-participants enjoy all the procedural rights of parties; each claimant or respondent appears in the process independently against the other side; and the conduct of the case may be entrusted to one co-participant, except where a co-participant is a minor or has a guardian or custodian; such delegation must be formalized in the manner established by the Code.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below we answer questions about the consolidation of cases.
Does multi-district litigation exist in Georgia?
Not under that name; its function is performed by consolidating cases into one proceeding for joint hearing.
Who decides on consolidation?
The court — on its own initiative or on a party's motion, by a reasoned ruling.
When is consolidation expedient?
Where the cases are homogeneous and legally related and consolidation leads to a faster and more correct examination.
Can claims be severed?
Yes — the judge severs a claim into a separate proceeding where separate consideration is more expedient.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The Legal.ge team analyses the possibility of consolidating cases, prepares motions and frames the joining of several claims in one action.
If the same dispute is scattered across several cases, write to us on Legal.ge — we will assess the prospects of consolidation, prepare the motion and plan the whole process within a single frame.