Case management - Case management directions for fast and multi-track cases

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the court's role in managing civil litigation cases after allocation to the fast track or multi-track. You will learn about the court's active case management powers under the overriding objective, the process of track allocation based on claim value and complexity, the standard directions typically issued for fast-track cases, and the more tailored approach involving Case Management Conferences (CMCs) for multi-track matters. You will also understand costs management principles and the implications of non-compliance with court orders, including sanctions and applications for relief.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you must understand the court's active role in case management and the distinct procedures for cases allocated to the fast track and the multi-track. This involves familiarity with the overriding objective, track allocation criteria, the purpose and content of Directions Questionnaires, typical case management directions, costs management, and the consequences of non-compliance.

As you work through this article, remember to pay particular attention in your revision to:

• the court's duty to manage cases actively in accordance with the overriding objective (CPR 1.4)
• the criteria for allocating claims to the fast track and multi-track (CPR 26.6, 26.8)
• the purpose and typical content of the Directions Questionnaire (Form N181)
• standard case management directions for fast-track cases (CPR Part 28, PD 28)
• bespoke case management directions for multi-track cases, including the function of Case Management Conferences (CMCs) (CPR Part 29, PD 29)
• the basics of costs management, including costs budgets (CPR 3.12-3.18, PD 3E)
• the court's powers regarding non-compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders, including sanctions and relief from sanctions (CPR 3.4, 3.8, 3.9)

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. A claim valued at £18,000 for breach of contract, involving disputed facts but expected to conclude within a one-day trial with limited expert evidence, would most likely be allocated to which track?
   1. Small claims track
   2. Fast track
   3. Multi-track
   4. Commercial Court list
2. What is the primary document used by the court after a defence is filed to gather information for track allocation and initial case management directions?
   1. Claim Form (N1)
   2. Particulars of Claim
   3. Defence (Form N9B/N9D)
   4. Directions Questionnaire (N181)
3. A party fails to comply with an 'unless order' requiring them to serve witness statements by a specific date. What is the most likely immediate consequence specified in the order?
   1. An adverse costs order on the indemnity basis.
   2. The striking out of their statement of case (claim or defence).
   3. An order for an interim payment.
   4. A referral to mediation.

Introduction

Once a defence has been filed in civil proceedings, the court assumes an active role in managing the case's progression. This ensures that disputes are resolved efficiently, fairly, and proportionately, aligning with the overriding objective outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). An essential initial step is allocating the case to the appropriate procedural 'track' – typically the fast track or the multi-track for defended claims exceeding the small claims limit. Following allocation, the court issues case management directions, which are tailored to the complexity and value of the claim and the specific track it has been assigned to. Understanding these processes, the types of directions given, and the consequences of non-compliance is essential for effective litigation practice.

The Overriding Objective and Active Case Management

The court's approach to case management is fundamentally guided by the overriding objective in CPR 1.1: enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. CPR 1.4 imposes a duty on the court to actively manage cases, which includes:

• encouraging co-operation between parties;
• identifying issues early;
• deciding the order issues will be resolved;
• fixing timetables and controlling case progress;
• considering whether the costs of a step are justified by the benefits;
• encouraging ADR where appropriate;
• dealing with cases efficiently and expeditiously.

These principles underpin all case management decisions, including track allocation and the setting of directions.

Track Allocation

After a defence is filed, the court provisionally allocates the claim to a track, primarily based on its financial value (CPR 26.6), but also considering complexity, the remedy sought, number of parties, likely trial length, and importance of the case (CPR 26.8). Parties provide input via a Directions Questionnaire.

• Fast Track (CPR Part 28): Generally for claims valued between £10,001 and £25,000, provided the trial is unlikely to exceed one day (5 hours) and oral expert evidence is limited (typically one expert per party per field).
• Multi-Track (CPR Part 29): For claims over £25,000, or lower value claims that are too complex for the fast track (e.g., likely trial length over one day, multiple complex issues, extensive expert evidence needed).

Directions Questionnaire (DQ)

This form (N181 for fast/multi-track) is essential for case management. Sent out after a defence is filed, it requires parties to provide information on settlement attempts, compliance with pre-action protocols, disclosure, evidence (witnesses and experts), trial estimates, costs, and proposed directions (CPR 26.3). Parties should cooperate in completing the DQ and attempt to agree directions.

Key Term: Directions Questionnaire
A standard court form (N181 for fast/multi-track) completed by parties after a defence is filed, providing the court with information to assist in allocating the claim to the correct track and giving appropriate case management directions.

Failure to file a DQ by the court's deadline can lead to sanctions, potentially including the striking out of the claim or defence (CPR 26.3(8)).

Fast Track Case Management Directions

The fast track aims for a swift and standardised procedure, with trials normally fixed within 30 weeks of allocation (PD 28 para 3.12). The court usually issues standard directions based on a fixed timetable without a specific hearing.

Standard fast track directions typically cover:

1. Disclosure: Parties give standard disclosure (CPR 31.6) by list, usually within 4 weeks. Inspection follows within 7 days of request.
2. Witness Statements: Simultaneous exchange, typically within 10 weeks.
3. Expert Evidence: Permission is required (CPR 35.4). Often limited to a single joint expert (CPR 35.7). Reports exchanged, usually within 14 weeks. Oral evidence is restricted.
4. Pre-Trial Checklist (Listing Questionnaire): Parties file Form N170, usually by 22 weeks, confirming compliance and readiness for trial.
5. Trial: A trial date or window is fixed, usually around 30 weeks from allocation. The trial itself is limited to one day.

Parties can agree limited extensions between themselves for steps like exchanging witness statements, provided key dates (like the trial) are not affected (CPR 28.4, CPR 3.8(4)). Significant variations require a court order.

Multi-Track Case Management Directions

The multi-track accommodates more complex and higher-value claims, requiring a more flexible and tailored approach to case management (CPR Part 29). While standard directions can be adapted, the court often convenes a Case Management Conference (CMC) to give bespoke directions.

Case Management Conferences (CMCs)

CMCs are hearings where the judge actively manages the case with the parties' representatives (PD 29 para 5).

Key Term: Case Management Conference (CMC)
A court hearing, typical in multi-track cases, where the judge reviews the case, discusses issues with the parties, gives tailored directions for the future conduct of the case (including setting a timetable), and manages costs.

Before the first CMC, parties should attempt to agree directions and file them (or their respective proposals) at least 7 days before the hearing (CPR 29.4). A case summary may also be required.

At the CMC, the judge will:

• Review the steps taken so far.
• Ensure issues are identified and narrowed.
• Give directions for future steps, such as:
  • Disclosure (potentially tailored, e.g., issue-by-issue, or limiting electronic searches).
  • Factual evidence (exchange of witness statements).
  • Expert evidence (permission, number and discipline of experts, whether a single joint expert is appropriate, meetings of experts, questions to experts).
  • Whether a split trial or trial of preliminary issues is appropriate.
• Fix a trial timetable or trial window.
• Deal with costs management.

Worked Example 1.1

A complex commercial dispute valued at £500,000 is allocated to the multi-track. Directions for disclosure have been given, but the parties disagree significantly on the scope of electronic searches required, particularly regarding keywords and date ranges. What is the court likely to do?

Answer: The court will likely require the parties to file and serve Disclosure Reports and discuss the issues. If they cannot agree on a proposal for disclosure, the matter will be addressed at a Case Management Conference (CMC). The judge will consider the parties' positions, the list of issues for disclosure, the likely costs involved (informed by costs budgets), and make a specific order defining the scope of the electronic search, balancing the need for relevant evidence against proportionality.

Costs Management in Multi-Track Cases

Costs management is mandatory for most multi-track cases (CPR 3.12). Parties (except litigants in person) must file and exchange costs budgets in the prescribed form (Precedent H) detailing incurred and estimated future costs for each stage of the litigation (CPR 3.13).

Key Term: Costs Budget
A detailed statement filed by parties in most multi-track cases, setting out their incurred costs to date and estimated future costs for each phase of the litigation (e.g., disclosure, witness statements, trial). Used by the court for costs management.

Parties must also file a budget discussion report (Precedent R) before the first CMC, highlighting agreed and disputed figures. The court reviews the budgets for reasonableness and proportionality and may approve them, potentially with revisions, in a Costs Management Order (CMO) (CPR 3.15).

Failure to file a costs budget on time results in a severe sanction: the party is treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees, limiting their recoverable costs drastically if successful (CPR 3.14). Relief from this sanction must be sought under CPR 3.9.

Non-Compliance, Sanctions, and Relief

Compliance with rules, practice directions, and court orders (including directions timetables) is essential. Failure to comply can lead to sanctions (CPR 3.4).

Key Term: Sanction
A penalty imposed by the court under its case management powers for a party's failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. Common sanctions include costs orders, striking out a statement of case, or limiting the evidence a party can rely on.

The court can impose sanctions on application or of its own initiative. A common tool is the 'unless order', which specifies that a particular sanction (e.g., striking out a claim) will automatically take effect unless the defaulting party complies with a specific requirement by a set deadline (CPR 3.1(3), 3.5).

Relief from Sanctions (CPR 3.9)

A party subject to a sanction can apply for relief under CPR 3.9. The court will consider all the circumstances to deal with the application justly, specifically considering the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the need to enforce compliance (CPR 3.9(1)).

Key Term: Relief from Sanctions
The court's power under CPR 3.9 to lift a sanction that has been imposed, or would otherwise take effect, following a party's failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. The court applies the Denton test.

The court applies the three-stage test from Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906:

1. Identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the breach. If the breach is neither serious nor significant, relief will usually be granted.
2. Consider why the default occurred. Was there a good reason? (Pressure of work is typically not considered a good reason).
3. Evaluate all the circumstances of the case, including the factors in CPR 3.9(1). This involves balancing the impact on the litigation, the need for compliance, and fairness to both parties. The promptness of the application for relief is a relevant circumstance.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant in a fast-track case is ordered to serve witness statements by 10th May. Their solicitor misses the deadline due to an oversight and serves them on 12th May. The trial date is not affected. The claimant applies for an order debarring the defendant from relying on the witness statements. The defendant applies for relief from sanctions. What is the likely outcome?

Answer: The court will apply the Denton test.

1. Seriousness: The breach (two days late) is unlikely to be considered serious or significant, especially as the trial date is unaffected.
2. Reason: An oversight by the solicitor is generally not considered a 'good reason'.
3. All circumstances: Given the breach is minor, caused no prejudice, did not imperil the trial date, and assuming the application for relief was made promptly, the court is likely to grant relief from the sanction (which would otherwise be imposed under CPR 32.10, preventing the defendant from calling the witnesses unless the court permits). However, the court might make an adverse costs order against the defendant for the costs of the application.

Revision Tip

Understand the Denton three-stage test thoroughly. Stage 1 (seriousness/significance) is often key – if the breach is trivial, relief is likely. Stage 3 (all circumstances) allows the court flexibility, but efficient conduct of litigation and compliance are heavily weighted factors. Don't assume a 'good reason' (stage 2) is always needed if the breach is minor.

Summary

Fast Track vs Multi-Track Case Management Comparison

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The court actively manages cases under CPR Part 3, guided by the overriding objective (CPR 1.1, 1.4).
• Cases are allocated to the fast track or multi-track based mainly on value and complexity (CPR 26).
• Directions Questionnaires (DQs) provide information for allocation and directions.
• Fast track cases (CPR Part 28) follow standard directions and a fixed timetable, aiming for trial within 30 weeks.
• Multi-track cases (CPR Part 29) receive bespoke directions, often set at Case Management Conferences (CMCs), tailored to their complexity.
• Costs management (costs budgets) is usually mandatory in multi-track cases (CPR 3.12-3.18).
• Failure to comply with rules or orders can lead to sanctions (CPR 3.4).
• Relief from sanctions is possible under CPR 3.9, applying the three-stage Denton test.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Directions Questionnaire
• Case Management Conference (CMC)
• Costs Budget
• Sanction
• Relief from Sanctions