Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

PI and Civil Litigation

Law - practice - procedure

Guildhall Chambers , 02 APR 2015

Moving off Track – Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 considered

Moving off Track – Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 considered
The appropriate track for a claim is often obvious, and is rarely a point of dispute. That said, the track the claim is allocated to will have a huge effect on the way the case is run and perhaps more importantly, what the cost of running that case will be. In that context the case of Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 deserves more coverage than it has received thus far.

The claim arose from a road traffic accident in October 2011. Mr Akhtar (or at least his insurers) claimed £6,392.80 on account of credit hire charges. No claim for personal injuries was made. The defendant admitted (subject to liability) £3,866.80 worth of that claim. When it came to allocation, the defendant averred that since the ‘amount in dispute’ was under £5,000 (the small claims limit at the time), the matter should be allocated to the small claims track. The District Judge agreed. The claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal. Their Lordships took the unanimous view that if a defendant wished to admit parts of the claim, and that as a result of those admissions ‘the amount in dispute’ was under the £5,000 threshold, then the small claims track was indeed appropriate.
Article continues below...
Guildhall Chambers
APIL Guide to Costs and Funding

APIL Guide to Costs and Funding

Provides a practical overview of the changes to costs and funding

Available in Lexis®Library
APIL Personal Injury

APIL Personal Injury

Law, Practice and Precedents

"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure" PI Focus

Available in Lexis®Library
Significance of the judgment

Including additional liabilities and disbursements, the claimant’s estimated costs came to around £15,000 (should the matter proceed to trial). However, because the claim was allocated to the small claims track, they were now only entitled to receive costs in accordance with CPR 27.14 (i.e. disbursements plus £80). Therefore, by admitting around £3,900 worth of the claim (still subject to liability), the defendant insurer saved themselves from having to pay up to £15,000 in costs. Even were there no success fee in place then that is a costs benefit analysis that surely any defendant would look favourably on!

Using Akhtar

Akhtar therefore offers defendants the opportunity to admit parts of the claim (sometimes small) in order to avoid paying the claimants costs (sometimes large). That will often be an attractive option. In simple terms, if the claim amounts to £10,500, the defendant can admit that an amount of £600 (subject to liability), and save themselves to have pay nearly any costs at all. For many, that will be a straightforward choice – the costs are clearly outweighed by the benefits.

The more interesting scenario (which has not been tested) will be where there is a claim for personal injuries as well. The exercise becomes more difficult since the claim for general damages will be (usually) unspecified - E.g., ‘the claimant expects to recover damages for more than £1,000 in respect of personal injury and loss, but not more than £5,000’ (for example). In those circumstances can a defendant still admit part of the claim for general damages in order to get the claim onto the small claims track and avoid costs, despite the unspecified nature of the pleading?

One possibility would to admit £4,000 worth of the general damages claim (subject to liability), leaving the remaining amount in dispute as £1,000, thus taking the matter into the small claims track. A claimant might make an application to amend, but such an application might not be successful. In many cases to admit such a large amount would be to overvalue the claim for damages, but it would probably still result in a saving when looking at the total outlay.

Pressure could also be applied by making a Part 36 offer for a sum of £4,000 on account of general damages after the service of the claim form, but early enough so that the 21-day period expires before directions questionnaires are due. If the claimant were unlikely to receive £4,000 on account of general damages then the offer should be accepted, and the remainder of the claim would continue in the small claims track. Conversely if it is not accepted, then the defendant can either: a) withdraw the offer or b) at least receive some costs when that offer is not beaten at trial


The above are merely two options that are now available to defendants following the decision in Akhtar. In fact, they are two options that to the author’s knowledge are yet to be tested. There may well be other ways that the judgment could be used. Each defendant should do a costs/benefit analysis of admitting a part of the claim vs potentially being liable for the claimant solicitor’s costs.

In trying to keep matters on the fast track claimants will either need to be more vague when pleading general damages (within the rules) or try to find an element of the claim that would justify the matter not being on the small claims track (e.g. points of law/evidence in dispute).

Either way, if defendants begin to use Akhtar as the tactical weapon that it potentially could be, then allocation might not become as straightforward as it perhaps once was.