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.