Track reallocation

Maguire v Molin (CA TLR 12 August)

So long as a claim remains in the fast track, a district judge has jurisdiction to hear it (paragraph 11.1(a) of CPR 26 Practice Direction). A claim does not cease to be in the fast track simply because it is amended so that its financial value exceeds £15,000, but in this event the district judge has a discretion as to whether or not the case should be reallocated to the multi-track under rule 26.10. Considerations relevant to the exercise of discretion are not only those applying to the initial allocation decision under rule 26.8(1) but other factors might have to be taken into account as well. If the revised financial value exceeds £15,000 by only a small amount it would usually be wrong to reallocate if that would cause substantial disruption to the progress of the litigation. But where the excess was substantial, then there should usually be reallocation, even if that meant causing considerable delay to the completion of the litigation. In the present case, having decided that it would be wrong to continue to hear the issue of liability on the fast track, the district judge had only two options available: to allow the amendment, reallocate and abort the trial of liability; or to refuse permission to amend. The district judge’s refusal to permit an amendment to delete the £15,000 limitation on damages and serve an updated schedule of damages of £80,000, but to continue the hearing was a proper exercise of his jurisdiction.