No Costs Rule - Question of definition

[Penfold92]

OK,

 

You have a case and it is over £5000, but the Judge allocates it to small claims and states: "I refer you to Section 27 of the CPR'S"

 

Does this mean that no costs rule is implied, or by virtue of being more than £5000 this overides that part of the CPR?

 

Reason I ask is I have also read in the "Small Claims Proceedure: A Practical Guide" on page 110, it states:

 

The "no costs" rule does not apply to case which would not usually qualify for the Small Claims track but where the parties have elected for the small claims track (rule 26.7(3)) (see page 78). However, the trial costs which can be recovered will be no more than the costs which could be recovered on the fast track...

 

Now on my AQ I wrote small claim on their AQ they wrote fast track so we have not agreed technically....Am I right in thinking this?

 

Penfold

[Hopeful1]

That's an interesting question, Penfold.

 

I'm bumping in the hope someone can answer

[Penfold92]

I think it means that the it will apply, but I would prefer a definitive answer than guessing when I stroll into court!

[Penfold92]

bump anyone out there know the correct answer???

[freakyleaky]

I have asked all the team and Steven has given me the following answer which is what I thought and what you thought.

 

CPR 27.14 (5) says that, in a case where the value of the claim exceeds the SCT 'limit' (ie £5000) but it is allocated to the STC anyway (under CPR 26.7(3)) then the SCT costs rules apply.

 

The only exception is if the parties have agreed that the FT cost provisions should apply. Clearly in this aces, that is not the case, so the SCT rules apply.

[Penfold92]

cool thanks freaky, what i hoped for...bring on nasty west then...