Porbanderwalla v Daybridge Ltd

HHJWorster, sitting at Birmingham, reported in LitigationFutures.com:  neither party submitted a Precedent H. 

On appeal, the Judge found that the lack of a form N149C  (a notice of proposed allocation to the multi-track) issued under 26.3, to specify the exchange of budgets meant that the budgeting requirements in the CPR were not triggered. That was notwithstanding that the Directions Questionnaire read “if your claim is likely to be allocated to the multi-track, form Precedent H must be filed in accordance with CPR 3.13”. Appeal from the DJ’s decision was therefore successful.

See here


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: