Understanding Court Tracks and Allocation in Civil Litigation

When proceedings are started, the court will allocate the claim to a court track. Which track will depend on the case’s complexity, value, and other factors. In England and Wales, civil claims are allocated to different “tracks” under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), each tailored to suit particular types of cases. The track it is allocated to will determine how the case is handled and have an impact on important matters such as evidence and costs recovery.

Below, we provide an overview of the court tracks and the allocation process.

What Are Court Tracks?

Court tracks are categories that determine how a case is managed in the courts. They aim to ensure proportionate allocation of resources and procedures based on the case’s complexity and value. The three main court tracks are:

1. Small Claims Track
2. Fast Track
3. Multi-Track
4. Intermediate Track

Each track has its own rules, timelines, and procedural requirements.

Small Claims Track

The Small Claims Track is designed for lower-value and less complex cases, making it a cost-effective and straightforward option for resolving disputes.

• Value Threshold: Typically for claims valued at £10,000 or less (or £1,000 or less for personal injury and housing disrepair claims).
• Key Features:
  • Informal hearings, often held in a local county court.
  • Parties are encouraged to represent themselves, reducing legal costs.
  • Costs recovery is minimal, meaning the losing party typically won’t have to cover the winner’s legal fees.
  • Less strict adherence to legal procedure compared to other tracks.

The Small Claims Track is particularly suited for disputes such as unpaid invoices, consumer complaints, or minor contractual disagreements.

Fast Track

The Fast Track is intended for moderately complex cases that require a more structured approach.

• Value Threshold: For claims valued between £10,000 and £25,000.
• Complexity: Cases must be suitable for resolution within one day of trial and require limited expert evidence (usually one expert per field).
• Key Features:
  • Strict procedural timetable, ensuring cases are resolved quickly (usually within 30 weeks of allocation).
  • Legal representation is more common.
  • Costs are recoverable but subject to fixed limits.

The Fast Track is often used for disputes such as breach of contract, medium-value personal injury claims, or property disputes.

Multi-Track

The Multi-Track handles the most complex and high-value cases, requiring significant court oversight and bespoke case management.

• Value Threshold: For claims valued over £25,000 or those involving significant complexity, regardless of value.
• Key Features:
  • Tailored case management to accommodate the needs of the case.
  • No fixed timetable; deadlines are set at case management conferences (CMCs).
  • Allows for extensive expert evidence, multiple witnesses, and longer trials.
  • Costs recovery is more substantial but also involves greater risks.

The Multi-Track is often used for complex commercial disputes, professional negligence claims, or cases involving multiple parties.

Intermediate-Track

The Intermediate Track is the newest addition to the CPR and is aimed at claims valued between £25,000 and £100,000 that are not complex enough to warrant Multi-Track treatment. Key features of the Intermediate Track include:

• Fixed recoverable costs (FRC) to promote cost proportionality.
• Streamlined case management procedures to reduce delays.
• A trial duration of no more than three days.

The introduction of the Intermediate Track bridges the gap between the Fast Track and Multi-Track, offering a more structured and predictable framework for mid-value claims.

The Allocation Process

The process of allocating a case to a track is governed by Part 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The court makes this decision after reviewing the particulars of the claim, considering factors such as:

• Claim Value: The primary factor in determining the track, but not the only one.
• Complexity: Cases with legal, factual, or procedural complexity are often moved to higher tracks.
• Number of Parties: Multi-party cases may require the flexibility of the Multi-Track.
• Need for Expert Evidence: If extensive or specialist expert evidence is required, the case is more likely to be allocated to the Multi-Track.

Steps in Allocation

1. Filing Directions Questionnaires (DQ):
   After the defence is filed, both parties complete a DQ, providing information on case value, complexity, and any expert evidence required.
2. Court Review:
   The court reviews the DQs and any additional information to allocate the case to the most appropriate track.
3. Allocation Decision:
   The court issues an Allocation Notice, confirming the track and providing further instructions (such as case management directions).

Challenging Allocation

The court’s decision to allocate a case to a specific track under Part 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is not always accepted by both parties. Disagreements may arise when one party believes the chosen track is unsuitable due to factors such as complexity, case value, or the need for expert evidence. While the allocation process is designed to ensure proportionality and efficiency, parties have the option to challenge an allocation decision if they believe it does not serve the interests of justice.

Grounds for Disagreeing with the Allocation

The most common reasons for disputing the allocation of a case to a particular track include:

1. Value of the Claim:
   • The claimant or defendant may argue that the case has been allocated incorrectly based on its financial value. For example, a case allocated to the Small Claims Track may actually involve disputed sums exceeding £10,000 once interest or additional damages are factored in.
2. Complexity of the Case:
   • Some cases, while lower in monetary value, may involve intricate legal issues, multiple parties, or require substantial expert evidence, which could justify allocation to the Fast Track or Multi-Track.
3. Evidence Requirements:
   • If a party believes the track does not allow for sufficient expert evidence or witness testimony to present their case effectively, they may argue for reassignment.
4. Time Limits or Procedural Constraints:
   • The strict deadlines and procedural simplicity of the Small Claims or Fast Track may not be appropriate for cases requiring significant preparation, such as those with multiple claims or counterclaims.

Steps to Challenge Allocation

If a party disagrees with the allocation decision, they can apply to the court to have it reviewed. This involves:

1. Filing an Application:
   • The party must submit an application notice (Form N244) to the court, outlining the reasons they believe the case should be reallocated to a different track. This application must be supported by evidence, such as:
     • Details of the case’s complexity.
     • Expert reports or anticipated witness requirements.
     • Documentation supporting the financial value of the claim or counterclaim.
2. Timely Action:
   • It is essential to act promptly. Applications to challenge allocation should be made as soon as possible after the allocation notice has been issued to avoid delays and additional costs.
3. Supporting Evidence:
   • A clear and concise explanation of why the initial allocation was inappropriate should be provided. This might include:
     • Legal arguments demonstrating the complexity of the case.
     • Correspondence showing disagreement between the parties on case value or procedural requirements.
4. Court Hearing:
   • In most cases, the court will consider the application at a hearing. During this hearing, both parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments, and the court will make a final decision on allocation.

Costs Implications of Allocation

The track to which a case is allocated can have a significant impact on costs:

• Small Claims Track: Costs recovery is generally limited to court fees and certain disbursements.
• Fast Track and Intermediate Track: Fixed recoverable costs (FRC) apply, meaning the amount of costs recoverable by the winning party is predetermined and depends on the value of the claim and its stage in the proceedings.
• Multi-Track: Costs are assessed in detail and can be significant, with no caps or fixed limits.

The introduction of FRC in the Intermediate Track provides greater predictability and control over legal costs, particularly for mid-value disputes.

Why Understanding Tracks and Allocation Matters

For litigants, the track and allocation of a case can significantly impact the cost, timeline, and strategy for resolving a dispute. Proper preparation of the Directions Questionnaire and an understanding of the rules governing each track can ensure the case is handled in a proportionate and cost-effective manner.

How Ai Law Can Help

At Ai Law, we understand that every case is unique. We work with clients to ensure their disputes are resolved as pragmatically and effectively as possible. Whether you are pursuing a claim or defending one, our experienced litigation team will guide you through the process and work towards achieving the best outcome for your case.

Contact Ai Law today.