header-logo header-logo

Not so multi

26 April 2013
Issue: 7557 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

It seems that a claim under s 214 of the Housing Act 2004 for deposit return and penalty must be brought under CPR Pt 8...

It seems that a claim under s 214 of the Housing Act 2004 for deposit return and penalty must be brought under CPR Pt 8 (CPR 56.1 and CPR PD56). Does this not mean that costs budgeting along with a disclosure report etc will be needed in this type of case and that the claimant will be condemned to pay a multi-track hearing fee of £1,090 (on top of the listing fee)? Some of theses claims may be worth less than £5,000, let alone £10,000.

You are correct that the Pt 8 procedure must be used to commence the claim. However, a deemed multi-track claim such as this will usually be more appropriate for another track because of the factual issues involved or value or both. The procedural judge would have a wide discretion to reallocate to whatever would be the appropriate track according to maximum value and the question

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll