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):

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 June 2025

Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) meeting of 6 June 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including open justice and access to court documents, electronic filing reforms, traffic enforcement procedures, summary assessment of costs, arbitration updates, disclosure rules, civil restraint orders, closed material procedures, judicial review reforms for infrastructure projects, whiplash reforms, digital services, and miscellaneous procedural updates.

Can a bankruptcy petition be heard at a hearing listed for a set-aside application? When can a guarantee found a petition? (Matthews v BSN (SW) Property Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: On appeal, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) held that it was not a procedural irregularity for the judge at first instance to go on and hear the bankruptcy petition, after he had dismissed an application to set aside an earlier order. The question of procedural irregularity is one of substance not of form. The judicial act of deciding what to hear, and when, is not hamstrung by the administrative act by the court staff of publishing a list of matters to be heard on a particular occasion. The court also reviewed the law on when a guarantee creates a debt in a liquidated sum, which was another of the six grounds of appeal. When acting for the creditor, consider whether the next hearing can be used to hear the petition. When acting for the debtor, raise any objections to hearing the petition at the time. Written by Robert Machell, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Evidential rules and ‘manifestly incredible’ factual evidence (Karpasitis v Hertfordshire City Council)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant successfully appealed the first instance dismissal of this claim on the basis that the judge had erred in finding that the Council had established the statutory defence afforded by section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980). The judge should have treated an assertion in a witness statement by Mr Cooke (the highways inspector) that a walked inspection of the verge had been carried out two months before the accident as manifestly incredible, given that it was contradicted by other evidence. Judgment was entered for the claimant for damages to be assessed, subject to a deduction of 33% for contributory negligence (which was the finding the first instance judge said he would have made if he had found the Council liable). Written by Martin Porter KC and Anastasia Karseras, barristers at 2 Temple Gardens.

Is social media a defective product? Pt 2

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Harry Lambert, a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, considers some key questions: is social media a 'product' at all, and how might claims be brought against its platforms?

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News