Allocating and transferring proceedings

Track allocation and assignment

At an early stage in a claim, the court will provisionally allocate the claim to what it thinks is the most appropriate 'track' for the purpose of managing the claim. There are different case management tracks for civil claims. The track to which a claim is allocated will determine how the claim is managed by the court (including the case management directions that are likely to be ordered) and the applicable costs regime for the claim.

Which track is the most appropriate track for the claim will depend on a number of factors, including the value of the claim. The tracks are (in terms of value):

  1. the small claims track—the normal track for straightforward claims with a value of not more than £10,000, though there are different financial limits for different types of claim including personal injury claims and landlord and tenant disputes

  2. the fast track—the normal track for claims with a value of more than £10,000 but not more than £25,000

  3. the intermediate track—the normal track for claims with a value of more than £25,000 but not more than £100,000.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents