Case management - Case management directions for fast and mu...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the court's role in managing civil litigation cases after allocation to the fast track or multi-track. You will learn about the court's active case management powers under the overriding objective, the process of track allocation based on claim value and complexity, the standard directions typically issued for fast-track cases, and the more tailored approach involving Case Management Conferences (CMCs) for multi-track matters. You will also understand costs management principles and the implications of non-compliance with court orders, including sanctions and applications for relief. In addition, you will see how the court addresses disclosure and expert evidence when setting directions, how parties may vary timetables by consent, what must be filed and when before a first CMC (including disclosure proposals and costs budgets), and what happens if budgets or witness statements are served late. Where relevant, you will be signposted to features that can influence case management in particular lists (for example, the Business and Property Courts disclosure framework).

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the court's active role in case management and the distinct procedures for cases allocated to the fast track and the multi-track, including familiarity with the overriding objective, track allocation criteria, the purpose and content of Directions Questionnaires, typical case management directions, costs management, and the consequences of non-compliance, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the court's duty to manage cases actively in accordance with the overriding objective (CPR 1.4)
• the criteria for allocating claims to the fast track and multi-track (CPR 26.6, 26.8), and awareness that the CPR now also provide for an intermediate track; this article focuses on fast and multi-track directions
• the purpose and typical content of the Directions Questionnaire (Form N181)
• standard case management directions for fast-track cases (CPR Part 28, PD 28)
• bespoke case management directions for multi-track cases, including the function of Case Management Conferences (CMCs) (CPR Part 29, PD 29)
• the basics of costs management, including costs budgets (CPR 3.12-3.18, PD 3E), the budget discussion report (Precedent R), and budget variations (Precedent T)
• the court's powers regarding non-compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders, including sanctions and relief from sanctions (CPR 3.4, 3.8, 3.9)
• disclosure choices and proposals for multi-track (CPR 31.5 and PD 31B; and, in the Business and Property Courts, PD 57AD)

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. A claim valued at £18,000 for breach of contract, involving disputed facts but expected to conclude within a one-day trial with limited expert evidence, would most likely be allocated to which track?
   1. Small claims track
   2. Fast track
   3. Multi-track
   4. Commercial Court list
2. What is the primary document used by the court after a defence is filed to gather information for track allocation and initial case management directions?
   1. Claim Form (N1)
   2. Particulars of Claim
   3. Defence (Form N9B/N9D)
   4. Directions Questionnaire (N181)
3. A party fails to comply with an 'unless order' requiring them to serve witness statements by a specific date. What is the most likely immediate consequence specified in the order?
   1. An adverse costs order on the indemnity basis.
   2. The striking out of their statement of case (claim or defence).
   3. An order for an interim payment.
   4. A referral to mediation.

Introduction

Once a defence has been filed in civil proceedings, the court assumes an active role in managing the case's progression. This ensures that disputes are resolved efficiently, fairly, and proportionately, aligning with the overriding objective outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). An essential initial step is allocating the case to the appropriate procedural 'track' – typically the fast track or the multi-track for defended claims outside the small claims regime. Since 2023 the CPR also provide for the intermediate track for many claims up to £100,000, but this article concentrates on directions for fast track and multi-track matters. Following allocation, the court issues case management directions tailored to value, complexity, anticipated trial length, and the nature of evidence. Understanding these processes, the types of directions given, how to prepare for and conduct a CMC, and the consequences of non-compliance is essential for effective litigation practice.

The Overriding Objective and Active Case Management

The court's approach to case management is fundamentally guided by the overriding objective in CPR 1.1: enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. CPR 1.4 imposes a duty on the court to actively manage cases, which includes:

• encouraging co-operation between parties;
• identifying issues early;
• deciding the order issues will be resolved;
• fixing timetables and controlling case progress;
• considering whether the costs of a step are justified by the benefits;
• encouraging ADR where appropriate;
• dealing with cases efficiently and expeditiously.

Active case management also encompasses allocating appropriate court resources, ensuring parties are on an equal footing (including giving directions with litigants in person in mind), and enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. Sanctions are deployed where proportionate to secure compliance and uphold the timetable to trial. Case management orders will be framed with proportionality at their core, so the scope of disclosure, the number of witnesses or experts, and whether expert evidence is oral or on paper, will typically reflect the claim’s value and complexity.

Track Allocation

After a defence is filed, the court provisionally allocates the claim to a track, primarily based on its financial value (CPR 26.6), but also considering complexity, the remedy sought, number of parties, likely trial length, and importance of the case (CPR 26.8). Parties provide input via a Directions Questionnaire.

• Fast Track (CPR Part 28): Generally for claims valued between £10,001 and £25,000, where the trial is likely to last no longer than one day and oral expert evidence is limited (typically one expert per party in up to two disciplines).
• Multi-Track (CPR Part 29): For higher value and/or more complex claims unsuitable for the fast (or intermediate) track, for example because the trial is likely to last more than a day, multiple or specialist experts are required, or there are complex issues of fact or law.

Since October 2023 the CPR also include an intermediate track for many claims up to £100,000 that are of lower complexity than typical multi-track matters. Allocation decisions may therefore place many claims between £25,000 and £100,000 in the intermediate track; however, the principles in this article about preparing for directions, managing disclosure, expert evidence and complying with orders remain directly relevant whenever a case is allocated to the fast track or multi-track.

When the court assesses the claim’s “financial value” for allocation, it disregards interest, costs, any contributory negligence, and any amount not in dispute. Where there are additional claims (for example, a counterclaim), the court generally looks to the largest of the claims rather than aggregating the amounts.

Directions Questionnaire (DQ)

This form (N181 for fast/multi-track) is essential for case management. Sent out after a defence is filed, it requires parties to provide information on settlement attempts, compliance with pre-action protocols, disclosure, evidence (witnesses and experts), trial estimates, costs, and proposed directions (CPR 26.3). Parties should cooperate in completing the DQ and attempt to agree directions.

Key Term: Directions Questionnaire
A standard court form (N181 for fast/multi-track) completed by parties after a defence is filed, providing the court with information to assist in allocating the claim to the correct track and giving appropriate case management directions.

In practical terms, a well-completed N181 will:

• indicate whether a one-month stay for settlement under CPR 26.4 is sought, with concise reasons;
• propose the disclosure approach (standard disclosure or a tailored alternative for multi-track, and any electronic disclosure parameters such as custodians, date ranges and keyword searches);
• identify the factual witnesses by name or number, and summarise the main issues on which they will give evidence;
• set out expert disciplines sought, whether parties propose a single joint expert (SJE), estimated expert fees, and whether meetings of experts or written questions are anticipated;
• provide a realistic trial length estimate, listing unavailable dates for advocates and witnesses;
• attach a draft order for directions, agreed where possible, based on the standard directions appropriate for the track and the case’s needs.

Failure to file a DQ by the court's deadline can lead to sanctions, potentially including the striking out of the claim or defence (CPR 26.3(8)).

Fast Track Case Management Directions

The fast track aims for a swift and standardised procedure, with trials normally fixed within 30 weeks of allocation (PD 28 para 3.12). The court usually issues standard directions based on a fixed timetable without a specific hearing. These directions reflect proportionality: disclosure is limited, expert evidence is curtailed, and most trials conclude in a single day with tightly controlled oral evidence.

Standard fast track directions typically cover:

1. Disclosure: Parties give standard disclosure (CPR 31.6) by list, usually within 4 weeks. Parties should be alert to issues around electronic documents and agree sensible search parameters. Inspection follows within 7 days of request.
2. Witness Statements: Simultaneous exchange, typically within 10 weeks. Witness evidence will often stand as evidence-in-chief and be limited to the issues in dispute.
3. Expert Evidence: Permission is required (CPR 35.4). Often limited to a single joint expert (CPR 35.7) in a discrete field (e.g., quantum or liability). Reports are exchanged, usually within 14 weeks. Oral expert evidence is exceptional and will only be permitted where necessary in the interests of justice.
4. Pre-Trial Checklist (Listing Questionnaire): Parties file Form N170, usually by 22 weeks, confirming compliance and readiness for trial, including the availability of witnesses and experts, and any outstanding directions sought.
5. Trial: A trial date or window is fixed, usually around 30 weeks from allocation. The trial itself is limited to one day, with a focussed timetable and realistic time estimates for cross-examination and submissions.

Costs consequences are also managed with proportionality in mind. Budgeting generally does not apply on the fast track, and many fast track claims are now subject to the fixed recoverable costs regime, but parties remain exposed to adverse costs orders for default or unreasonable conduct.

Parties can agree limited extensions between themselves for steps like exchanging witness statements, provided key dates (like the trial) are not affected (CPR 28.4, CPR 3.8(4)). Any variation that risks the trial date, the pre-trial checklist date or listed hearings must be sought by application. Unagreed variations should be raised promptly, with draft revised directions and a short witness statement explaining why the variation is sought and why it is consistent with the overriding objective.

Multi-Track Case Management Directions

The multi-track accommodates more complex and higher-value claims, requiring a more flexible and tailored approach to case management (CPR Part 29). The court will fashion directions to suit the case, often setting a sequence across disclosure, witness evidence, expert evidence, and further case management hearings (CMC or pre-trial review), and will set a realistic trial window. While standard forms of order provide a starting point, multi-track directions are bespoke.

Typical features of multi-track directions include:

• identifying issues and whether any preliminary issues should be tried (for example limitation or construction of a clause);
• a disclosure regime proportionate to the issues (from no disclosure to issue-based or staged disclosure, or—where appropriate—standard disclosure);
• a timetable for witness statements with simultaneous exchange and concise page limits consistent with the issues;
• expert evidence permissions stating discipline(s), whether SJE or party experts, whether oral evidence is permitted, and listing dates for meetings of experts and joint statements (CPR 35.12) and for written questions (CPR 35.6);
• a costs management timetable (where applicable) addressing budgets and any costs management order (CMO);
• a trial window and trial estimate, recording any special listing requirements (e.g., interpreter, video evidence, or remote attendance).

Case Management Conferences (CMCs)

CMCs are hearings where the judge actively manages the case with the parties' representatives (PD 29 para 5).

Key Term: Case Management Conference (CMC)
A court hearing, typical in multi-track cases, where the judge reviews the case, discusses issues with the parties, gives tailored directions for the future conduct of the case (including setting a timetable), and manages costs.

Before the first CMC, parties should attempt to agree directions and file them (or their respective proposals) at least 7 days before the hearing (CPR 29.4). A concise case summary (often not more than 500 words) that identifies the issues and what each party says about them will assist the court. Where multi-track disclosure is in issue under CPR 31.5, each party must also file and serve a disclosure report at least 14 days before the CMC summarising the likely scope and volume of documents, the location of documents (including electronic sources), and costs. The parties must discuss and seek to agree a disclosure proposal at least 7 days before the CMC.

If the case is in the Business and Property Courts, disclosure will typically be managed under PD 57AD (the permanent “extended disclosure” regime), with a Disclosure Review Document (DRD) for the parties’ proposals and, where appropriate, one of the disclosure models A–E. The court will then approve a proportionate model (or combination of models) issue-by-issue.

At the CMC, the judge will:

• Review the steps taken so far.
• Ensure issues are identified and narrowed.
• Give directions for future steps, such as:
  • Disclosure (potentially tailored, e.g., issue-by-issue, staged disclosure, or limitations on electronic searches).
  • Factual evidence (exchange of witness statements).
  • Expert evidence (permission, number and discipline of experts, whether a single joint expert is appropriate, meetings of experts, questions to experts).
  • Whether a split trial or trial of preliminary issues is appropriate to save costs.
• Fix a trial timetable or trial window.
• Deal with costs management (see below).

Judges expect parties to be represented by advocates familiar with the case and with authority to agree directions. If a proposed order is not approved, the judge will substitute directions that serve the overriding objective.

Worked Example 1.1

A complex commercial dispute valued at £500,000 is allocated to the multi-track. Directions for disclosure have been given, but the parties disagree significantly on the scope of electronic searches required, particularly regarding keywords and date ranges. What is the court likely to do?

Answer:
The court will likely require the parties to file and serve Disclosure Reports and discuss the issues. If they cannot agree on a proposal for disclosure, the matter will be addressed at a Case Management Conference (CMC). The judge will consider the parties' positions, the list of issues for disclosure, the likely costs involved (informed by costs budgets), and make a specific order defining the scope of the electronic search, balancing the need for relevant evidence against proportionality.

Costs Management in Multi-Track Cases

Costs management is mandatory for most multi-track cases (CPR 3.12). Parties (except litigants in person) must file and exchange costs budgets in the prescribed form (Precedent H) detailing incurred and estimated future costs for each stage of the litigation (CPR 3.13).

Key Term: Costs Budget
A detailed statement filed by parties in most multi-track cases, setting out their incurred costs to date and estimated future costs for each phase of the litigation (e.g., disclosure, witness statements, trial). Used by the court for costs management.

Parties must also file a budget discussion report (Precedent R) before the first CMC, highlighting agreed and disputed figures. The court reviews the budgets for reasonableness and proportionality and may approve them, potentially with revisions, in a Costs Management Order (CMO) (CPR 3.15). While the court cannot approve “incurred” costs, it can record comments that may be taken into account on assessment; it will manage “budgeted” future costs so they are proportionate. If there is a significant development in the litigation (for example, a new party or an unexpected increase in documents), a party may seek to vary its approved budget using Precedent T; promptness and clear justification are essential.

Key Term: Costs Management Order (CMO)
An order approving or varying budgets under CPR 3.15. Costs reasonably and proportionately incurred within the last approved or agreed budget are unlikely to be reduced on detailed assessment absent “good reason.”

Failure to file a costs budget on time results in a severe sanction: the party is treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees, limiting their recoverable costs drastically if successful (CPR 3.14). Relief from this sanction must be sought under CPR 3.9, and prompt applications supported by evidence are important. Even when costs management does not apply (e.g., certain specialist lists or high value claims over £10 million), the court may still have regard to budgets for case management and to control disproportionate expenditure.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant in a fast-track case is ordered to serve witness statements by 10th May. Their solicitor misses the deadline due to an oversight and serves them on 12th May. The trial date is not affected. The claimant applies for an order debarring the defendant from relying on the witness statements. The defendant applies for relief from sanctions. What is the likely outcome?

Answer:
The court will apply the Denton test.

1. Seriousness: The breach (two days late) is unlikely to be considered serious or significant, especially as the trial date is unaffected.
2. Reason: An oversight by the solicitor is generally not considered a 'good reason'.
3. All circumstances: Given the breach is minor, caused no prejudice, did not imperil the trial date, and assuming the application for relief was made promptly, the court is likely to grant relief from the sanction (which would otherwise be imposed under CPR 32.10, preventing the defendant from calling the witnesses unless the court permits). However, the court might make an adverse costs order against the defendant for the costs of the application.

Worked Example 1.3

A claimant in a multi-track claim worth £750,000 fails to file a Precedent H by the CPR 3.13 deadline. The budget is filed one week late with an explanation that fee earner illness caused the delay. The defendant objects and invites the court to treat the claimant as having filed a budget limited to court fees. What is the likely approach?

Answer:
CPR 3.14 provides for a stark sanction (budget limited to court fees) unless the court otherwise orders. The claimant must apply promptly for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and address the Denton stages. A one-week delay in a multi-track matter is likely to be treated as serious or significant (stage 1). Fee earner illness is not automatically a “good reason” (stage 2) unless evidenced and unavoidable. At stage 3 the court will weigh all the circumstances, including the impact on the CMC and whether the default has disrupted case management. If the hearing date is unaffected and the default was promptly corrected with credible evidence, relief may be granted, often with a costs penalty. If not, the budget may be confined to court fees, with potentially grave consequences for recovery at the end of the case.

Non-Compliance, Sanctions, and Relief

Compliance with rules, practice directions, and court orders (including directions timetables) is essential. Failure to comply can lead to sanctions (CPR 3.4). The court can impose sanctions on application or of its own initiative. A common tool is the 'unless order', which specifies that a particular sanction (e.g., striking out a claim) will automatically take effect unless the defaulting party complies by a set deadline (CPR 3.1(3), 3.5).

Key Term: Sanction
A penalty imposed by the court under its case management powers for a party's failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. Common sanctions include costs orders, striking out a statement of case, or limiting the evidence a party can rely on.

Key Term: Unless Order
A conditional order stating that if a party does not comply with a specified requirement by a stated deadline, a defined sanction (often strike out or evidence debarment) will take effect automatically without further order.

Parties may agree certain short extensions of time by consent, usually up to 28 days, provided no hearing date is imperilled and the extension does not put at risk any listed trial or pre-trial deadline (CPR 3.8(4)). Parties who rely on agreed variations should record them clearly in writing. More substantial timetable changes, or any changes that affect listed hearings or the trial, require a court order. The sacrosanct nature of the trial date underpins the court’s approach: adjournments will be granted only for good reason and with prompt applications supported by evidence.

Relief from Sanctions (CPR 3.9)

A party subject to a sanction can apply for relief under CPR 3.9. The court will consider all the circumstances to deal with the application justly, specifically considering the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the need to enforce compliance (CPR 3.9(1)).

Key Term: Relief from Sanctions
The court's power under CPR 3.9 to lift a sanction that has been imposed, or would otherwise take effect, following a party's failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. The court applies the Denton test.

The court applies the three-stage test from Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906:

1. Identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the breach. If the breach is neither serious nor significant, relief will usually be granted.
2. Consider why the default occurred. Was there a good reason? (Pressure of work is typically not considered a good reason).
3. Evaluate all the circumstances of the case, including the factors in CPR 3.9(1). This involves balancing the impact on the litigation, the need for compliance, and fairness to both parties. The promptness of the application for relief is a relevant circumstance.

Applications should be made without delay and supported by a short witness statement explaining the breach, its impact, and the remedial steps taken. The court often marks relief with costs sanctions to reflect the time and expense caused to the other party.

Worked Example 1.4

The defendant’s expert report is due on 1 September. The defendant realises on 29 August that the expert requires an additional two weeks to complete testing. The trial window begins in late January, and no other dates will be affected by a short extension. What should the defendant do?

Answer:
The defendant should immediately seek the claimant’s written agreement to a short extension (up to 28 days) under CPR 3.8(4), explaining why it is needed and confirming that no hearings or the trial date are put at risk. If agreement is reached, record it in correspondence and serve the report within the extended period. If agreement is refused or if the extension risks case milestones, the defendant should apply promptly to court for a short extension with a draft order, evidence (for example a short statement and the expert’s explanation), and a revised timetable compatible with the trial window.

Revision Tip

Understand the Denton three-stage test thoroughly. Stage 1 (seriousness/significance) is often key – if the breach is trivial, relief is likely. Stage 3 (all circumstances) allows the court flexibility, but efficient conduct of litigation and compliance are heavily weighted factors. Don't assume a 'good reason' (stage 2) is always needed if the breach is minor.

Additional Practical Points for Directions

• Disclosure on the multi-track: Outside the Business and Property Courts, CPR 31.5 provides a menu of disclosure options (including dispensing with disclosure, issue-based disclosure, and standard disclosure). Parties must file disclosure reports and propose a proportionate approach at or before the CMC. For electronic documents, PD 31B encourages early discussion of custodians, date ranges, keywords, deduplication, and formats for inspection to keep costs proportionate.
• Expert evidence: Permission orders should specify the expert’s field, whether an SJE or party experts are permitted, whether oral evidence is allowed, and timetables for questions and meetings. Meetings of experts (CPR 35.12) and joint statements help narrow issues and reduce trial time.
• Witness statements: Directions will set page limits and ensure statements address only matters in dispute. Late service risks the witness being debarred from giving evidence without permission (CPR 32.10).
• Pre-trial reviews (PTRs): In heavier multi-track cases, the court may list a PTR to ensure readiness, refine the timetable, confirm the trial estimate, and address any outstanding interlocutory issues so that the trial proceeds efficiently.
• ADR: The court may direct parties to file statements about ADR or to explain any refusal. A brief stay for settlement under CPR 26.4 or an order requiring parties to consider ADR can be made at or after allocation. Adverse costs consequences may follow an unreasonable refusal to engage with ADR.

Summary

Fast Track vs Multi-Track Case Management Comparison

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The court actively manages cases under CPR Part 3, guided by the overriding objective (CPR 1.1, 1.4).
• Cases are allocated to the fast track or multi-track based mainly on value and complexity (CPR 26), with an intermediate track now available for many claims up to £100,000.
• Directions Questionnaires (DQs) provide information for allocation and directions, including disclosure and expert proposals and a realistic trial estimate.
• Fast track cases (CPR Part 28) follow standard directions and a fixed timetable, aiming for trial within 30 weeks, with controlled disclosure and expert evidence.
• Multi-track cases (CPR Part 29) receive bespoke directions, often set at Case Management Conferences (CMCs), tailored to their complexity; in the Business and Property Courts, disclosure is managed under PD 57AD.
• Costs management (costs budgets) is usually mandatory in multi-track cases (CPR 3.12-3.18), with Precedent R budget discussion reports and Precedent T for variations, and the possibility of a Costs Management Order (CMO).
• Failure to comply with rules or orders can lead to sanctions (CPR 3.4), including unless orders with automatic consequences.
• Relief from sanctions is possible under CPR 3.9, applying the three-stage Denton test; prompt, well-evidenced applications are essential.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Directions Questionnaire
• Case Management Conference (CMC)
• Costs Budget
• Costs Management Order (CMO)
• Sanction
• Unless Order
• Relief from Sanctions