Kershaw v Roberts & Anor

In a Part 8 claim, a directions hearing is not necessarily a case management conference. The costs-management provisions applicable to a case management conference are triggered only when the court actually allocates the claim to the multi-track, or makes a specific order applying those provisions. A Part 8 claim is merely treated as allocated to the multi-track for specified procedural purposes; it is not thereby automatically allocated. The court must decide the appropriate procedure, track and hearing type having regard to justice and proportionality. A hearing before actual allocation cannot be the first case management conference, even if directions are given and the claim is later allocated to the multi-track.

The claimant brought a claim under section 1(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, using the Part 8 procedure. At an initial hearing described as a directions hearing, the county court allocated the claim to the multi-track, transferred it and directed a later costs management hearing. The claimant argued that the initial hearing was necessarily the first case management conference and that the defendants’ late costs budget was therefore restricted to applicable court fees under CPR rule 3.14.

His Honour Judge Philip Hughes rejected that argument and subsequently made a costs order. The claimant appealed on the costs-budget issue. The defendants cross-appealed on costs.

1. The claimant’s appeal was refused and the defendants’ cross-appeal was allowed in part. The initial Taunton hearing was not a case management conference, the defendants’ costs budget was not late for that purpose, and the sanction in CPR rule 3.14 did not apply.
2. Case management conferences are a creature of CPR Part 29. Under rules 29.2 and 29.3, the relevant powers are triggered by the court’s actual allocation of the claim to the multi-track. Rule 8.9(c) does not automatically allocate every Part 8 claim to that track. It provides only that such claims are treated as allocated for the purposes identified by the Rules.
3. Until actual allocation, a Part 8 claim is governed by Part 8 and CPR PD 8A. A directions hearing under paragraph 6.4 of that practice direction is distinct from a case management conference. The court may decide the claim’s appropriate procedure, specific track, directions and hearing type. It may also make a positive order applying costs management without allocating the claim to the multi-track.
4. The distinction is substantive, not merely a matter of labels. The notice, time estimate, preparation expected of the parties and matters actually addressed showed that the Taunton hearing was not intended to be, and was not in substance, a case management conference. The subsequent allocation at that hearing could not retrospectively convert it into one.
5. The court rejected the contrary suggestions in White Book Note 8.0.5. The court also observed that the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 4) Rules 2014, which removed automatic application of costs management to Part 8 claims from 22 April 2014, provided slight support for that construction.
6. The costs of the Taunton hearing remained costs in the claim. However, the defendants were entitled to their costs of contesting the issue before Judge Hughes. The claimant was ordered to pay half of those costs, with the other half costs in the claim.

• High Court (Chancery Division): appeal from the judgment and order of His Honour Judge Philip Hughes dated 30 January 2014. The appeal was refused and the defendants’ cross-appeal was allowed in part.