£10k claim proposed for Fast Track, how do I ask for Small Claims? (England)

[LiP_Special]

Hi all, this is my first court claim and I’m acting in person.

I’ve brought a £10,000 unpaid invoice claim. The court has proposed Fast Track and sent me an N181, but the form has no Small Claims option, which would put me at a great disadvantage. There’s no counterclaim, no experts, and I can't imagine that the hearing should take very long. The evidence is mostly messages, emails, invoices, photos and a Witness Statement from one of their own former managers.

Do I just write “Small Claims Track” next to the allocation section and attach a short explanation? Should I also file an N180, or only the N181 the court sent me?
Any recommendations please, how to deal with this?
Thank you in advance

[Frank1]

You should read PD 26 Case Management.
In particular Para 3 Provision of extra information
(1) A party can provide further information which he believes is relevant to allocation
(2) (a) and (b) All parties should agree that the info is correct and that it should be put before the court or confirms that the document has been sent to all other parties.

My advice is to complete n181 as far as the questions are the same or similar to n180
Attach a letter providing additional info and stating reasons why you believe your claim is suitable for SMC.

State you are a LIP, cannot afford expensive legal costs or take the additional financial risk You do not believe your claim is complex and the procedures on the fast track would be excessive.
Also write you wish to take advantage of free SMC mediation available on this track as you consider your claim could be settled out of court.

Send a copy of your partially completed N181 and letter to the other party and state in your letter that a copy has been sent to the defendant

You could also state in your letter you are prepared to attend an allocation hearing if required.

[atticus]

You have said nothing about the defence, the grounds on which your claim is disputed.

The extract you have posted directs you to CPR Part 26. Have you looked at those rules?

Complete the form requesting allocation to the Small Claims Track, and state your reasons.

[LiP_Special]

You should read PD 26 Case Management.
In particular Para 3 Provision of extra information
(1) A party can provide further information which he believes is relevant to allocation
(2) (a) and (b) All parties should agree that the info is correct and that it should be put before the court or confirms that the document has been sent to all other parties.

My advice is to complete n181 as far as the questions are the same or similar to n180
Attach a letter providing additional info and stating reasons why you believe your claim is suitable for SMC.

State you are a LIP, cannot afford expensive legal costs or take the additional financial risk You do not believe your claim is complex and the procedures on the fast track would be excessive.
Also write you wish to take advantage of free SMC mediation available on this track as you consider your claim could be settled out of court.

Send a copy of your partially completed N181 and letter to the other party and state in your letter that a copy has been sent to the defendant

You could also state in your letter you are prepared to attend an allocation hearing if required.

Thank you. Yes, I have read Part 26.

Their Defence disputes the contractual basis of parts of the claim (though it admits in principle the hourly payment mechanism), the scope of the work, whether certain alleged requirements were met, and puts me to proof of the hours claimed. It also now advances a deliverable-based payment condition which I say was never agreed.

I dispute those points and rely on contemporaneous documents, communications, photographs and witness evidence.

There is no counterclaim and no expert evidence. It appears to me to be a relatively straightforward factual and contractual dispute, which is why I am seeking allocation to the Small Claims Track.

[LiP_Special]

You should read PD 26 Case Management.
In particular Para 3 Provision of extra information
(1) A party can provide further information which he believes is relevant to allocation
(2) (a) and (b) All parties should agree that the info is correct and that it should be put before the court or confirms that the document has been sent to all other parties.

My advice is to complete n181 as far as the questions are the same or similar to n180
Attach a letter providing additional info and stating reasons why you believe your claim is suitable for SMC.

State you are a LIP, cannot afford expensive legal costs or take the additional financial risk You do not believe your claim is complex and the procedures on the fast track would be excessive.
Also write you wish to take advantage of free SMC mediation available on this track as you consider your claim could be settled out of court.

Send a copy of your partially completed N181 and letter to the other party and state in your letter that a copy has been sent to the defendant

You could also state in your letter you are prepared to attend an allocation hearing if required.

Thanks, that is very helpful.

I can see that CPR 26.13 includes “the circumstances of the parties” as an allocation factor. Would that also include the practical burden on someone acting in person of dealing with Fast Track procedure?

My main concern is actually the time and admin involved (rather than the court fees themselves). I did not apply for Help with Fees, so I do not want to overplay financial hardship, but I also cannot absorb or delegate the clerical and procedural work in the same way that a law firm can.

Would it make sense to mention that, while still basing the request mainly on the value, lack of experts, absence of a counterclaim and likely hearing length?

[atticus]

I can see no reason why you should not mention any of the things that you have listed if you would like the judge to consider them.

You have not explained the defence. This will set out the things the judge is going to have to decide.

[Frank1]

When you file your DQ you should file your Reply to Defence at the same time. Send a copy to the Defendant
You refer to documents, communications, photographs and witness evidence In SMC these documents are normally exhibited with the witness statement which is usually filed and served not less than 2 weeks before the trial date.
So it is possible that the court has decided that this evidence should be disclosed much earlier in the process. In the fast track document lists are prepared early on

[LiP_Special]

I can see no reason why you should not mention any of the things that you have listed if you would like the judge to consider them.

You have not explained the defence. This will set out the things the judge is going to have to decide.

Thanks. If I understand your point correctly: their Defence identifies the issues the judge will need to determine. I'll summarise those briefly in the allocation note, rather than setting out the Defence in detail.

[LiP_Special]

When you file your DQ you should file your Reply to Defence at the same time. Send a copy to the Defendant
You refer to documents, communications, photographs and witness evidence In SMC these documents are normally exhibited with the witness statement which is usually filed and served not less than 2 weeks before the trial date.
So it is possible that the court has decided that this evidence should be disclosed much earlier in the process. In the fast track document lists are prepared early on

Thank you. My understanding is that a Reply to Defence is optional, although if I decide to file one it would need to be filed with the Directions Questionnaire and served at the same time. I am still considering whether it would be tactically useful, or whether it might instead give the Defendant material to refine or strengthen its Defence. If I do not file one, they would still need to prove the matters raised in the Defence.

The evidence itself is fairly simple and straightforward, but it covers about three and a half months of work and will need cross-referencing across several schedules, so the overall volume may look greater than the underlying issues really are. I will explain that in my allocation note and ask the court to consider whether the case can still be managed proportionately on the Small Claims Track.

[atticus]

My point was that you have not told us anything about the defence, so we cannot comment whether the case is as straightforward as you appear to think.

[Frank1]

Under Cpr the defendant is not provided the opportunity to file a reply to the claimants Reply to Defence
Nor can a witness statement include opinions and legal issues. If the defendant wants to strengthen his defence he will need the court's permission.
Consdering the above you should draft a Reply to Defence disputing issues in the Defence that you disagree with

[LiP_Special]

My point was that you have not told us anything about the defence, so we cannot comment whether the case is as straightforward as you appear to think.

Fair point. In broad terms, it was an hourly paid R&D consultancy engagement. My position is that payment was for the time spent carrying out the development work, including unsuccessful tests and product lines that were later discarded or superseded, rather than being conditional on guaranteed final deliverables.

The Defence now alleges that specific deliverables and internal approval were conditions of payment, which I say was never agreed during the negotiations. They also ended the engagement abruptly and without notice before the work could be finalised, and now rely on the absence of final delivery as part of their Defence, although provisional work had already been produced and shared.

There is no counterclaim or expert evidence. The evidence is mainly documentary and factual, although it covers about three and a half months.

[atticus]

That suggests that there was no written contract. Is that correct?

[LiP_Special]

That suggests that there was no written contract. Is that correct?

No. There was a contract. The agreed terms were recorded in a written engagement plan and contemporaneous correspondence, including the hourly rate.

It was not physically signed, which the Defence relies on heavily, but both parties proceeded with and performed the engagement.

[atticus]

Which means that one of the issues that the judge will have to decide is whether the engagement was on those terms or something else. This will be significant, as this will affect the question at what point you become entitled to be paid. Alot will turn on the judge's ruling whether those terms apply to the engagement.

This is a factor that militates against allocation to the Small Claims Track.