Direct contradiction between BPP and Revise SQE on Track Allocation – Which logic is correct?
I am finding a direct conflict between two reputable SQE1 providers regarding Track Allocation rules. Could someone please help me identify which one is correct?
[Case 1] BPP Free Mock Exam
A homeowner brings a negligence claim against a builder seeking damages in the sum of £29,000. The builder has admitted acting negligently but denies causing the homeowner any loss. Trial is likely to last one day. Each party will rely on one witness of fact. The parties have agreed that expert evidence will be needed only from one expert, who will be jointly instructed. Which of the following is the normal track for this claim?
A. The fast track, because of the value of the claim and the expert evidence required.
B. The multi-track, because of the value of the claim and the length of trial.
C. The fast track, because of the value of the claim.
D. The fast track, because of the value of the claim, the expert evidence required and the length of trial.
E. The multi-track, because of the value of the claim
Correct Answer according to BPP: E
"The fast track is the normal track for any claim for which the small claims track is not the normal track and where the value is not more than £25,000... The claim is for more than £25,000 and therefore the fast track is not the normal track, and therefore the multi-track is the normal track... it is only the value of the claim which indicates that the multi-track is the normal track."
[Case 2] Revise SQE
A claimant commences proceedings against a defendant for the sum of £27,000. The amount relates to non-payment of an invoice for the building of an orangery at the back of the defendant's customer's house. The defendant argues that the work carried out is defective... The parties have jointly agreed to instruct one single joint expert... The issue of allocation falls to the court to consider. Which of the following best represents the position that the court will likely adopt when allocating the claim to an appropriate track?
A. The court is likely to allocate the claim to the fast track on the basis of its complexity.
B. The court is likely to allocate the claim to the intermediate track on the basis of its value.
C. The court is likely to allocate the claim to the intermediate track on the basis of its value and complexity.
D. The court is likely to allocate the claim to the fast track on the basis that the trial is unlikely to last more than one day and there is only one expert.
E. The court is likely to allocate the claim to the intermediate track because even though the trial is unlikely to last more than one day, its value is too high to be considered in the fast track**.**
Correct Answer according to Revise SQE: D
"While value is a consideration, the court is likely to regard the fast track as the normal track as the issues are not complex, the parties have agreed the appointment of one expert who is unlikely to give oral evidence, and the trial is not likely to last longer than one day... Even though the value is slightly above the bracket that would ordinarily qualify a claim for the intermediate-track, this is outweighed by the likely length of the trial and its complexity."
The Conflict:
Both claims are above £25,000 but have "Fast-track characteristics" (1-day trial, 1 expert)
- BPP (Case 1) argues that since the value (£29k) exceeds the £25k limit, the Multi-track is the "normal track" by definition.
- Revise SQE (Case 2) argues that for a £27k claim, the trial length and simplicity outweigh the value, making the Fast-track the likely allocation.
Which provider is correctly interpreting the SRA assessment standard?