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 of reallocation should be referred to the court at an

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