H418/01 - Court jurisdiction and procedure
Learn where civil disputes are heard, how parties prepare a claim and how courts match procedure to its demands. Civil claims usually seek a remedy for a private wrong rather than punishment for a crime.
The County Court and civil claims
The County Court handles much of the everyday civil work in England and Wales, including debts, contract disputes, many personal injury claims and housing disputes.
A claimant brings a claim against a defendant. Jurisdiction means the court's legal authority to hear the dispute. A remedy is the court's response to an established wrong: damages compensate loss; an injunction orders someone to do or stop doing something. Neither is automatically a criminal sentence. A cyclist claiming compensation from a careless driver brings a civil claim even if the same incident also leads to a prosecution.
The County Court is one court operating through hearing centres. District judges and circuit judges hear its cases, normally without a jury. In an ordinary civil claim, the claimant must establish the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities: more likely than not. This differs from the prosecution's normal burden of proving criminal guilt so that the court is sure.
The County Court is not simply a court for claims below one universal financial ceiling. It may hear substantial claims where it has jurisdiction. Choosing the appropriate court also involves the type of dispute, statutory rules and complexity. Most routine family proceedings now belong in the separate Family Court; calling the County Court a general divorce court would misdescribe the current structure.
Original worked example: A retailer refuses to refund £800 for equipment alleged to be defective. A claim for money belongs naturally in the County Court. Establishing jurisdiction does not establish liability: the claimant must still prove the relevant legal wrong and loss. If the evidence is equally balanced on a fact the claimant must prove, the claimant has not met the civil burden.
The High Court and its divisions
The High Court deals with important, complex and higher value civil work and has three divisions with specialist responsibilities.
| Division | Main civil work | Illustrative dispute |
|---|---|---|
| King's Bench | Contract, tort and public-law judicial review; specialist courts include the Commercial Court and Technology and Construction Court | A major building defect claim |
| Chancery | Business, companies, insolvency, trusts, property, probate and intellectual property | A dispute over a trust's administration |
| Family | High Court family work, including difficult children and international family matters | An international child-return dispute |
The divisions organise expertise within one High Court; they are not three levels in an appeal ladder. Queen's Bench is the former name of King's Bench. The name changed with the monarch, rather than creating a new jurisdiction. A judicial review examines the legality of public decision-making; it is not a general rehearing of whether an official made the best choice. The Judiciary's account of the divisions identifies their specialist work.
For ordinary Part 7 money/damages proceedings, Practice Direction 7A normally permits a High Court start only above £100,000; the personal injury threshold is £50,000 or more. Specific legislation and specialist procedures can govern particular claims. Passing a threshold does not mean the High Court is compulsory: value, complexity and public importance inform the choice and cases can be transferred.
Original worked comparison: A routine £120,000 debt may be suitable for the County Court despite its value. A technically difficult £500,000 construction dispute may suit the High Court's specialist court. A £20,000 ordinary money claim does not become eligible for a High Court start merely because the claimant describes it as important. Identify the applicable procedure before using the thresholds.
Preparing a civil claim
Pre-trial procedure identifies what is disputed and prepares the evidence before a judge decides the claim.
Before proceedings, parties normally follow the relevant pre-action protocol, or the general pre-action practice direction where no specific protocol applies. The claimant explains the claim and remedy sought; the defendant responds; relevant information is exchanged and settlement is considered. A letter of claim gives the other side a meaningful chance to answer. The pre-action practice direction links these steps to narrowing issues, settlement and proportionate preparation. Ignoring reasonable obligations can have costs consequences; it does not automatically prove the other party's case.
If unresolved, the claimant issues a claim form and provides particulars of claim, the factual and legal basis of the claim. Service formally brings the documents to the defendant. The defendant may admit the claim, defend it or acknowledge service and then defend within the applicable time. Failing to respond can permit default judgment where the rules allow it. A defended case is not decided simply by counting who wrote the longer document.
The parties give information through directions questionnaires so the court can allocate a track and set directions: orders for preparation and a timetable. Depending on the claim and track, preparation may include disclosure of relevant documents, exchange of witness statements and permission for expert evidence. Disclosure is about relevant evidence, including adverse material, rather than selecting only helpful documents. Experts assist on specialist matters; witnesses give factual evidence. Judicial case management keeps the work proportionate to the dispute.
Original worked example: A customer alleges poor repairs; the garage denies them. The customer identifies the agreement and claimed loss; the garage explains the disputed work. Invoices and photographs narrow the factual disagreement. Expert evidence may help on technical quality if permitted. Settlement remains possible throughout: issuing proceedings does not forbid negotiation.
Matching claims to a track
A track is a procedural route for managing a defended claim, not a separate court or a guaranteed appeal destination.
OCR names the small claims, fast and multi-tracks. The current system also includes the intermediate track, introduced in October 2023. CPR Part 26 lists all four. For ordinary money claims, the normal starting points are:
| Track | Normal scope and procedure |
|---|---|
| Small claims | Up to £10,000; relatively informal hearings and restricted recovery of legal costs |
| Fast | Not normally small claims; up to £25,000; trial normally no longer than one day, with restricted oral expert evidence |
| Intermediate | Unsuitable for small/fast; monetary relief normally up to £100,000; trial no longer than three days, normally at most two oral experts per party, suitable complexity and party structure |
| Multi | Claims unsuitable for the other tracks; more individual judicial management |
These are normal allocations, not an automatic sorting rule. Personal injury and housing claims have special small-claims limits. The intermediate track normally covers one claimant against one or two defendants, or two claimants against one defendant; exclusions and judicial discretion matter. Complexity, the remedy, parties and evidence can outweigh an apparently simple value bracket. Restricted legal-cost recovery does not mean nobody pays any fees or expenses.
Original worked example: A £16,000 ordinary contract claim with a half-day trial and no experts normally fits the fast track. If the same claim requires a five-day trial and difficult expert disputes, its value alone does not keep it there. A suitable £65,000 ordinary money claim with a two-day trial may fit the intermediate track. High value and multi-track are not synonyms for High Court jurisdiction.
The reason for differentiated procedure is proportionality: a £600 dispute should not normally demand the same preparation as a complex commercial claim. Simpler procedure can improve access, but a poorly allocated case may receive too little preparation. The strongest justification is matching resources to the real dispute, with judicial discretion to avoid unfairness.
Quick recap
Choose the court by jurisdiction and suitability, prepare the dispute through pre-action and court directions, then distinguish a procedural track from the court itself. Current civil procedure uses four tracks.