what components add to value of claim ?

[satsuma]

hello, please could anybody help regarding; does the value of claim "stick" at original claim level (before being allocated to track etc) OR do expert witness, further applications ...photocopies etc etc increase "value of claim" upwards ?

thankyou

[R0b]

CPR 28.8 sets out the criteria for track allocation.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...es/part26#26.8

[satsuma]

thankyou; please could you confirm; if i understand correctly that 26.8 (1) "a-i", (2) "a-d" means; in laymens terms "the court basically sets "the value of the claim" entirely" ?,

- thus meaning "the value of claim" on the N1 written by claimant is very much "pinch of salt" value unless for "basic reimbursment of monies without complexity of case" (where here could be used literally for allocation for tracking ?).

thankyou.

[R0b]

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean by the court setting the value of the claim. Claims fall into two categories: specified and unspecified.

A specified claim is where the damages are specified and a fixed amount. For example, the Money Claims Online service allows you to claim a fixed sum of money, so they would be specified claims and then the applicable fees will apply depending on how much you are claiming.

On the other hand, an unspecified amount is where you have an idea about what your claim is worth but you can't put an exact figure on it. For example, if you are a business and you are claiming loss of profits or loss of business your claim would probably be an unspecified amount and on the N1 form you will write "I do not expect to cover more than £120,000." The fees for an unspecified claim is currently fixed at £10,000.

So I wouldn't agree with your view that the value of the claim is taken with a pinch of salt nor does the court set the value of the claim either. If a claim is under £10,000 generally the courts will recommend the case is allocated to the small claims regardless of the dispute, unless the issue is one of fraud the CPR does say that claims of fraud would not normally be appropriate for the small claims track.

If parties to the claim think that the court has allocated to the wrong track, they are free to make an application to have that assessed based on the criteria.

[satsuma]

thankyou!; you are right to not agree with my view as it was stupidity derived from my confusion... thankyou for clarifying.

On the other hand, an unspecified amount is where you have an idea about what your claim is worth but you can't put an exact figure on it.

this is my confusion; if claimant "cannot realistically put a figure" (due to lack of availability of precedent / whatever); then (if accepted), for purposes they are basically "guessing" - to be "guessing" from common sense perspective seemingly has massive potential to "delegitimise claim" ?.

please could you clarify if possible; if the above paragraph is at all accurate, or accurate ONLY if the claim is unwarranted ("excessively high" for example) OR is such irregardless of how "inaccurate" (i.e. "if either both excessively high OR low"), thanks.