header-logo header-logo

11 December 2008
Issue: 7349 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Court of Appeal slams lower court for failing to control small claim

Amanda Wadey looks at how a £2,000 claim ended up costing £100,000

The Court of Appeal has come down hard on a judge who allowed a small claim to be transferred to the multi-track on the basis of a spurious counterclaim. On the small claims track solicitors’ costs are not normally recoverable, unlike on the multi-track.
 

Facts of the case
 

Mr Peakman brought proceedings against Linbrooke Services to recover £2,232.40. Linbrooke contested the claim, making a basic counterclaim in response to the claim and a more substantial counterclaim which it valued in the region of £30,000 to £40,000. As a consequence of the more substantial counterclaim the matter was allocated to the multi-track.
On the first day of the trial, Mr Peakman argued that the substantial counterclaim should be struck out on the basis that it had no chance of success. However, Linbrooke persisted with it, despite there being no evidence to substantiate it, and was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll