Description
Requirement contained in a notice of proposed allocation under CPR r.26.3 to file Directions Questionnaire did not also amount to a requirement to serve a costs budget.
The Claimant (C) appealed against the District Judge's decision that a notice of proposed allocation to the multi-track required the parties to file a costs budget despite there being no such reference to the requirement to do so on the notice.
HHJ Worster rejected the argument that CPR r.3.13 was not engaged until the case had been formally allocated to the multi-track. However, because the notice of proposed allocation did not specify a date for the service of a budget, the trigger in CPR r.13.3 had not been activated. There appeared to be two versions of the notice of proposed allocation in circulation: one providing for a costs budget to be filed by a particular date and the other did not.
