header-logo header-logo

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

Not so small

The court can now “track down” a civil claim without the consent of the parties by amendment to CPR 27.7...

The court can now “track down” a civil claim without the consent of the parties by amendment to CPR 27.7. This appears to mean, for example, that a claim for £12,000 could be allocated to the small claims track whether the parties like it or not. Are we likely to find that claims which are only modestly over the new normal small claims £10,000 limit or modestly over the £1,000 limit for personal injury claims will be tracked down? Does the new regime not disadvantage a party who has used lawyers believing that his costs would be recoverable if he won only to find that he is limited to small claims restricted costs?

The removal of CPR 27.7(3)—which had required the parties’ consent to track down from fast to small claims—has given greater flexibility to district judges on allocation. Even so, it is generally unlikely that a claim will be tracked down purely on the

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