Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Serious procedural and costs consequences exist for parties when a claim is first allocated to a track and then subsequently re-allocated. The case of Francois v Barclays Bank Plc serves as a salutary reminder that track re-allocation cannot be inferred by the parties or the court in the absence of express evidence. Whereas CPR 26.9 requires the court to serve parties with notice of allocation to track, the CPR is silent in respect of re-allocation. The High Court held that in furtherance of the overriding objective and fairness in the administration of justice in litigation, parties must be notified by the court when a claim is re-allocated to a different track. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, that was how the rules should be construed. Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.