header-logo header-logo

09 September 2016
Issue: 7713 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Low but multi

Where a low value road traffic personal injury claim exits the protocol with a CPR Part 7 claim which is allocated to the multi-track, do fixed recoverable costs apply?

If the exit was for a reason associated with the claimant’s default within CPR 45.24 (for example, acting unreasonably by exiting) then the defendant’s costs liability may be limited to fixed costs and allowable disbursements. Subject to this, while there is a fixed costs regime in place, it only applies to claims for no more than £25,000. Therefore, if the complexion of the claim has changed and it has been allocated to the multi-track on value grounds (over £25,000) then costs will be at large and the usual discretion will apply although an attempt could be made at the costs budgeting stage to limit the costs to fixed costs. If, however, the claim is for under £25,000 but has been allocated to the multi-track because of some complexity or allegation of fraud, we consider it is highly arguable that the fixed costs regime is still capable of applying.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll