Track specific case management

All civil claims are allocated to a case management track for the purpose of managing the claim. Which track is most appropriate for the claim will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to the value of the claim. The track to which a claim is allocated will also determine the applicable costs regime for that claim, with certain tracks limiting the level of costs that can be recovered. The case management tracks are: the small claims track (SCT), the fast track, the intermediate track and the multi-track.

The rules relating to allocation of claims to a case management track, and to case management in the different tracks, vary, depending on whether proceedings are issued before or after 1 October 2023. For civil claims issued on or after 1 October 2023, an additional track is introduced—the intermediate track.

For further guidance on the different case management tracks and how cases are allocated to a particular track, see: Allocating and transferring proceedings—overview and Practice Note: Case management—allocation—the different case management tracks.

Small claims—case management

The following are the key features of case management in

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

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents