What can I do if I believe that the claimant has inflated the value of their claim so as to have it allocated to a higher track than it should have been allocated to?This Q&A considers what a defendant can do where a claim has been over-valued and, as a consequence, allocated to a higher track than it otherwise would have been.Action prior to allocationThe first stage of allocation is the court sending the parties a notice provisionally allocating the claim to the track which appears to be most suitable for the claim (CPR 26.3(1)(a)). This is then followed by the directions questionnaires.If a defendant considers that the claim has been inflated or over-valued, then any submissions as to the appropriateness of the track ought to be raised within the directions questionnaire in the first instance. Section D2 of the fast and multi-track directions questions allows for brief reasons to be given about the track, but more detailed submissions and other information can be included at Section I.The financial value of the claim is just one of the factors listed in CPR 26.8 that are relevant to allocation so it may be necessary to address other factors, such as expert evidence or the time estimate for trial, if the court is being invited to allocate to a lower track.It is worth noting that CPR 26.8(2) states that it is for the court to assess the financial value of a claim. Therefore, if the value of the claim as stated by the claimant is being challenged, the defendant will need to provide as much information as possible to assist the court in reaching a different view. For allocation purposes, the court has to disregard any amount not in dispute, interest, costs and any issues of contributory negligence.Where there is a dispute about the appropriate track, the court may decide to hold an allocation hearing (CPR 26.5(4)), but this is not automatic and the court may, and ordinarily will, simply take a view based on the points raised in the directions questionnaires.Action to take after allocationFollowing receipt of the notice of allocation the following options are open to a defendant.Generally, the defendant would make an application for the claim to be re-allocated under CPR 26.10. There needs to be a good reason for the court to exercise its discretion to re-allocate, this is particularly so if there has been no change to the claimant’s case between the original allocation and the application. Therefore, a defendant will need to present cogent evidence that the claim is likely to be worth less than the statement of value.Alternatively, the defendant may apply to set aside or vary the notice of allocation or directions order so that the original allocation decision is replaced and the ‘new’ track and its particular costs regime is taken to apply throughout. The court’s power to do this is found in CPR 3.1(7). It should be said that the court may be unwilling to take this approach for what is in substance an application to re-allocate, but it is nevertheless a possible option.For guidance on the impact on costs of track allocation, see Practice Note: Track allocation—costs recovery—Costs following reallocation.If it only becomes apparent at trial that the claimant’s case has been overvalued, the defendant could, having raised the issues in the directions questionnaire, apply for the court to exercise its discretion on costs at the conclusion of the proceedings so as to limit costs to those costs that would have been recoverable in the appropriate track (assuming of course that the inflating of the claim is borne out in the final judgment).For further guidance on allocation, see Practice Note: Case management—allocation—the different case management tracks, and for track specific case management, see Track specific case management—overview.