On the right track?
Series: Solicitors' Journal ; 144(48) 22 December 2000, 1168-1169(2)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: Examines "Butani v Camden LBC (unreported), a recent disrepair case brought by the litigant in person, and expresses concerns about the refusal of leave to appeal on the grounds that the Court of Appeal is not entitled to interfere with a judge's allocation of cases to any particular track. Disputes the decision to hear the case under the small claims track, suggesting that the directions given by the Judge at the case management conference were more appropriate to a fast-track trial as Mr Butani contended, and that the court has the implied discretion to allocate a claim to the small claims track irrespective of its value. Concludes that CPR 26.7(3) should have been considered and leave to appeal granted.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63450 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110447-1001 |
Examines "Butani v Camden LBC (unreported), a recent disrepair case brought by the litigant in person, and expresses concerns about the refusal of leave to appeal on the grounds that the Court of Appeal is not entitled to interfere with a judge's allocation of cases to any particular track. Disputes the decision to hear the case under the small claims track, suggesting that the directions given by the Judge at the case management conference were more appropriate to a fast-track trial as Mr Butani contended, and that the court has the implied discretion to allocate a claim to the small claims track irrespective of its value. Concludes that CPR 26.7(3) should have been considered and leave to appeal granted.