# Track allocation and case management

> **Key takeaway:** Part 26 allocation after defence: small / fast / intermediate / multi-track by value and complexity. Directions and costs follow the track. Thresholds and FRC change — check current CPR. Re-allocation possible.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Civil Procedure
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/CivilProcedure/track-allocation-case-management
- **Keywords:** track allocation, CPR Part 26, small claims track, fast track, intermediate track, multi-track, directions questionnaire, fixed recoverable costs, case management

## What is this about?

After a defence is filed, most claims are allocated to a case-management track that determines procedure, costs, and typical directions. The CPR currently contemplates small claims, fast track, intermediate track, and multi-track (with fixed recoverable costs reforms expanding intermediate-track significance). Allocation is driven by value, complexity, and remedy sought.

## What is the core rule?

The court allocates each defended claim to a track under CPR Part 26 having regard to financial value, nature of the remedy, complexity of facts/law/evidence, number of parties, oral evidence needs, and the parties' circumstances (CPR 26.13 factors — check current numbering). Small claims are for lower-value simpler disputes; fast and intermediate tracks cover mid-value claims with streamlined directions and (where applicable) fixed costs; multi-track is for higher-value or complex cases with tailored CMCs and often costs budgeting. Re-allocation is possible if circumstances change.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Has a defence been filed so that allocation is engaged?
2. What is the financial value (disregarding specified items such as costs/interest as the rules require)?
3. Complexity, witnesses, experts, and public importance factors?
4. Which track fits; any special list or specialist court?
5. Directions questionnaire completed accurately; proposed directions proportionate?
6. Costs regime: fixed recoverable costs vs budgeting (multi-track)?

## Which authorities matter?

- **Civil Procedure Rules, Part 26 (allocation) and related track Parts (27 small claims; 28 fast/intermediate as applicable; 29 multi-track)** — Primary procedural framework — always verify current track value thresholds and intermediate-track FRC scope after reforms.
- **Civil Procedure Rules, Part 3 (case management powers)** — General powers used alongside track-specific directions.

## How does this apply in practice?

Track value thresholds and the intermediate track/fixed recoverable costs regime have been reformed in stages — treat numerical limits in older textbooks as suspect and check the current CPR/White Book. Personal injury and possession claims may have special pathways. This note maps structure, not every FRC table.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Using outdated financial thresholds for track allocation
- Under-pleading complexity and ending up on a track with inadequate directions for expert evidence
- Ignoring fixed recoverable costs implications when making intermediate-track offers/settlements
- Failing to seek re-allocation when the case expands

## When would a practitioner use this?

DQ strategy, CMC preparation, and costs risk assessment at the outset of defended claims.

## Quick reference

Part 26 allocation after defence: small / fast / intermediate / multi-track by value and complexity. Directions and costs follow the track. Thresholds and FRC change — check current CPR. Re-allocation possible.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*