Part 8 Claims – An Overview

There are two main ways in which Court Proceedings can be issued – either through Part 7 or Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

In this article, we will consider the advantages and disadvantages of Part 8 claims, when this type of procedure can be used and how to object to these claims.

Part 8 claims – the advantages and disadvantages

One of the benefits of using the Part 8 procedure is that the preparation of costs budget can often be avoided. The costs budgeting process not only adds an additional layer of costs in terms of preparing, reviewing and seeking approval of the costs budgets but it also presents a risk to a party to proceedings, as once the costs budgets are approved, except in exceptional circumstances, it will act as a cap on the level of recoverable costs upon success.

Another advantage of the Part 8 process is that it tends to be much quicker than the Part 7 process. A notable disadvantage to using Part 8 however, is the need to provide your supporting evidence for the claim when issuing proceedings. This is not necessary when using Part 7. The legal fees incurred therefore tend to be front loaded if a Part 8 claim is pursued.

When can the Part 8 procedure be used?

Part 8 of the CPR set out when the Part 8 procedure may be used. Other parts of the CPR covering specific claims may also clarify whether a Part 8 claim can or, in some cases, must be used.

Part 8 claims are typically simpler claims which involve minimal dispute and no overly complex facts.

Objecting to Part 8 claims

It is possible for a defendant to object to a claimant using the Part 8 procedure, once the claim has been issued. Such an objection can only be raised when the defendant believes there is a substantial dispute of fact and there is no provision of the CPR restricting the claim to the Part 8 procedure only. The advantage to objecting to the claim being made by Part 8 (if a defendant wishes to frustrate the Court Proceedings as far as possible) is that it may result in the claim being transferred to the Part 7 process which will likely delay matters.

Defendants willing to object to the use of the Part 8 procedure should raise this when acknowledging service of the claim. Their reason for objecting should be noted in the acknowledgement of service. The Court will decide on the future of the case and how this may be managed, which may include transferring the claim to be the Part 7 procedure. Parties are also able to agree to any necessary steps prior to a Judge making a decision.

The case of Kershaw v Roberts (Representative of the Estate of Jones) established that Judges should consider the below when deciding on any Part 8 objections:

This suggests that it is at the Judge’s discretion as to whether a claim should be transferred to the Part 7 procedure. They also have the ability to order directions and hold any hearings if necessary, so that a claim can remain as a Part 8 claim.

It should be noted that a Judge also has power to transfer Part 8 proceedings to Part 7 at any time it appears to be suitable.