header-logo header-logo

What counts as unreasonable behaviour in the small claims court?

31 May 2017 / Francis Kendall
Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

The threshold for an award of costs in the small claims court is high, but not insuperable as Francis Kendall explains

Although the government has had to shelve its plans for personal injury reform, as laid out in the Prisons & Courts Bill in the run up to the election it seems likely that they will be revived if the Conservatives are returned to power next month.

This means the Small Claims Court (SCC) could find itself at the centre of attention, given the intention to increase the small claims track limit for injuries arising from road traffic accidents to £5,000, and to £2,000 for other personal injury (PI) claims.

The appeal of the SCC for defendants, obviously, is the absence of costs shifting, and indeed this is one of claimant groups’ main objections to the policy. While this may deter lawyers, and in turn claimants – although there has already been bullish talks from some claimant firms on

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll