Maguire v Molin

An amendment that raises a claim above the normal £15,000 fast-track limit does not automatically remove the claim from that track or deprive a district judge of jurisdiction. Reallocation under the Civil Procedure Rules is discretionary.

The court should consider the initial allocation factors, disruption to the proceedings, the size of the excess, whether the change was reasonably foreseeable, and the significance of the trial judge, evidence, resources and costs associated with the track. A small, unforeseeable excess may not justify reallocation. A substantial excess will usually do so, even if reallocation causes delay. A very late amendment may be refused where it would unfairly disrupt a part-heard trial, particularly where the need for amendment resulted from an avoidable failure to value the claim.

The claimant, aged 15 at the time of the accident, brought a personal injury claim arising from carbon monoxide poisoning. Her claim was issued and allocated to the fast track with damages limited to £15,000.

After the liability hearing had begun, the claimant sought permission to delete the limit and serve an enlarged schedule of special damages. The proposed claim was worth approximately £80,000. The district judge found liability in her favour but refused the amendment. His Honour Judge Poulton dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

The claimant brought a second appeal. The central issues were whether the district judge had jurisdiction to allow the amendment and continue hearing liability on the fast track, whether reallocation and a rehearing were required, and whether refusal of the amendment was a proper exercise of discretion.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Dyson delivered the judgment of the court.

1. An amendment increasing a claim beyond the normal £15,000 fast-track limit does not itself terminate the existing allocation or deprive a district judge of jurisdiction to continue hearing the claim. The initial-allocation rule in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 26.7(3)) did not govern the court’s jurisdiction after a later amendment.
2. CPR 26.10 gives the court a broad discretion to reallocate an amended claim. The court may consider the matters relevant to initial allocation under CPR 26.8(1), together with the disruption caused by reallocation, the amount by which the value exceeds the track limit, the foreseeability of the change, and the practical consequences for evidence, costs, resources and the category of judge hearing the claim.
3. A small excess will usually carry little weight and may not justify reallocation, especially where it could not reasonably have been foreseen. A substantial excess will ordinarily require reallocation, even if this causes considerable delay. The financial limits matter because fast-track claims generally involve shorter trials, limited expert evidence and fixed costs, all of which affect the resources deployed by the parties. The category of judge is also material because multi-track cases generally cannot be tried by a district judge or master without the required consent and permission.
4. In this case, the proposed value of approximately £80,000 was substantially above the limit. The need for amendment arose from the claimant’s solicitor’s failure to appraise the claim properly in time. The district judge was entitled to conclude that allowing the amendment would require the part-heard liability trial to be aborted and the claim reallocated, causing delay, additional costs and possible prejudice to the defendant. Refusing permission was therefore a permissible exercise of discretion.
5. It was also unacceptable to postpone the amendment application until after liability had been decided merely to avoid the track problem. A party seeking variation of a direction must act as soon as possible, and fairness required the defendant to know promptly whether the claim was being transformed into a substantial multi-track claim.
6. The district judge’s decision was not plainly wrong and involved no material misdirection. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the claimant’s second appeal: [2002] EWCA Civ 1083.
• Canterbury County Court: His Honour Judge Poulton dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the district judge’s decision on 7 February 2002.
• Canterbury County Court: District Judge Green determined liability in the claimant’s favour but refused permission to amend the particulars of claim and schedule of special damages on 7 December 2001.