Akhtar v Boland

An unqualified admission of liability, or judgment entered on an admitted sum, removes that amount from the amount in dispute for track allocation. A claimant may obtain judgment for part of an unliquidated damages claim and pursue the balance. Equivocal or inconsistent admissions should be clarified under CPR 18.1. Where the disputed balance falls within the small claims scope, allocation to that track may be appropriate, subject to complexity. The applicable costs rules may prevent an order for costs in the circumstances specified by the relevant Practice Direction.

The claimant brought a road-traffic claim including credit-hire and other losses initially pleaded at £6,392.80. The defence admitted liability for £2,496 but disputed the balance and raised further issues concerning the hire agreement, mitigation and recoverability. The claim was allocated to the small claims track. District Judge Fox refused reallocation and entered judgment for £2,496. His Honour Judge Platts dismissed the claimant’s appeal but awarded the defendant £2,738.94 in costs. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal on allocation and costs. The issues were whether the admissions reduced the amount in dispute and whether the costs order was permissible.

1. Substantive appeal dismissed. An unqualified admission binds the admitting party unless withdrawn with the court’s permission under CPR 14.1(5). A judgment for part of a claim has stronger effect: neither party may advance evidence or submissions inconsistent with it unless the judgment is set aside.
2. A defendant may admit part, but not the whole, of an unliquidated damages claim. The claimant may obtain judgment on the admission and continue for the balance. The part-claim judgment does not extinguish the cause of action.
3. Where an admission is equivocal or inconsistent with the defence, clarification should be sought under CPR 18.1. The court may order clarification itself and, in an extreme case of genuine incoherence, strike out the defence.
4. After judgment for £2,496, that sum was not in dispute. Under CPR 26.8 and paragraph 7.4 of CPR PD 26A, only the balance remained in dispute. The Judge was therefore entitled to allocate the claim to the small claims track. Complexity remains relevant under CPR 26.8(1)(c), but the case was not shown to be too complex for that track.
5. Costs appeal allowed in part. Under CPR 44.9 and paragraph 15.1 of CPR PD 44, the Judge should not have ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs. The costs order was set aside; the allocation decision was otherwise upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the substantive appeal against allocation to the small claims track, but set aside the costs order.
• Manchester County Court, His Honour Judge Platts: dismissed the claimant’s appeal from District Judge Fox’s refusal to reallocate the claim to the fast track and ordered payment of £2,738.94 costs.
• Manchester County Court, District Judge Fox: refused reallocation, entered judgment for £2,496 and costs, and directed that paragraph 15.1 of the Costs Practice Direction apply until service of the defence.