header-logo header-logo

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

Not so multi

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll