Blank Space? | Costs Budgeting In Cases Without A Stated Value

Ever found yourself with a Part 7 claim form where the “value” section is conspicuously blank? This often happens when the main goal isn’t a straightforward sum of money – think of applications for injunctions, or TOLATA (Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) claims seeking orders about property occupation, ownership shares, or whether a property should be sold. Sometimes, the financial value is genuinely up in the air when proceedings kick off.

Whatever the reason, getting to grips with the costs implications from day one is absolutely vital. The general rule that the loser pays a portion of the winner’s costs still applies. So, understanding the costs management rules is key to managing your client’s expectations and your firm’s exposure.  

And things are about to get even more interesting. A significant shake-up to costs budgeting is coming with new pilot schemes under Practice Directions 51ZG1, 51ZG2, and 51ZG3, set to run from 6 April 2025 for three years. These pilots, applying to claims issued on or after this date in specific courts, aim to simplify costs budgeting, making it more proportionate. Expect new, streamlined costs budgeting forms, like the much-talked-about Precedent Z, which is tipped to be a more concise document.

This means we’re heading into a temporary dual system: claims issued before 6 April 2025, or those in courts not part of the pilots, will stick with the current costs management rules in CPR Part 3. Claims falling under the pilots will follow the new Practice Directions. This split demands extra vigilance to ensure you’re on the right track.

The new pilots consistently stress “proportionate cost” , a clear signal from the Civil Justice Council’s review which called for a more flexible approach. For claims without a stated monetary value – often seeking significant non-monetary outcomes – this idea of proportionality becomes particularly nuanced.  

As mentioned, it’s usually because:

• The main relief isn’t monetary: Injunctions, TOLATA orders for sale or declarations of property rights, specific performance. 
• Genuine uncertainty: Sometimes, the financial value is truly unknown at the start, perhaps needing disclosure or expert evidence to crystallise.
• A word of caution: Deliberately omitting a value that could have been reasonably stated might not sit well with the court and could influence case management.

The reason for the blank space can subtly affect how a judge views the case, even if the rules seem to treat all such claims the same initially. The court has discretion, often signalled by the phrase “unless the court orders otherwise” in the new pilot Practice Directions. Be ready to explain the omission clearly in the Directions Questionnaire (DQ) and at any Case Management Conference (CCMC).

The rise of digital claim portals like OCMC and DCP might eventually lead to more structured input about a claim’s nature, even if “no value stated” remains an option.

Track Allocation: The First Big Step (CPR Part 26)

Allocating a claim to the small claims, fast, intermediate, or multi-track is a crucial early decision. For “no value stated” claims, CPR 26.7(2) says the court will allocate it to the track it “considers most suitable having regard to the matters mentioned in rule 26.8(1)”.  

The court looks beyond just money, considering factors from CPR 26.8(1) like : 

• • • The nature of the remedy sought.
    • Likely complexity (facts, law, evidence).
    • Number of parties.
    • Value and complexity of any counterclaim.
    • Amount of oral evidence needed.
    • Importance of the claim to non-parties.
    • Parties’ views on allocation.
    • Parties’ circumstances.

The Directions Questionnaire (DQ) is your main chance to provide this information and argue for a suitable track. Many non-monetary or complex claims end up on the multi-track. The multi-track is the default for cases not fitting other tracks, often those valued over £100,000, but complexity or the remedy sought can also lead here. 

If necessary, the court can assess a financial value itself, disregarding undisputed amounts, interest, costs, and contributory negligence (CPR 26.8(2)).

Don’t forget the Intermediate Track, introduced in October 2023. It generally covers claims between £25,000 and £100,000, with trials up to three days and limited expert evidence. If a “no value stated” claim (like a declaration with limited factual dispute) seems to fit these complexity criteria, it could be allocated here. This is significant because the intermediate track usually means Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC), which would generally override standard costs budgeting.

Costs Budgeting: Keeping Up with Changes

Once a “no value stated” claim lands on a track requiring costs management (usually the multi-track), the budgeting rules kick in. How this works depends on whether your claim is under the existing CPR or one of the new pilot schemes.

Scenario 1: The Current Rules (Claims NOT Under the New Pilots)

This applies to claims issued before 6 April 2025, or those issued after but outside the pilot’s scope, if allocated to the multi-track where CPR 3.12 mandates costs management. 

• • • The Form: Precedent H.
    • Filing Deadlines (CPR 3.13):
      • If the claim form states a value less than £50,000, file Precedent H with the DQ. 
      • For any other case (including claims over £50,000 or where value is unstated/problematic), file it no later than 21 days before the first CCMC. 
      • The “No Value Stated” Dilemma: Since there’s no stated value “less than £50,000,” the safer bet is the “any other case” rule (21 days before CCMC). Some play it extra safe and file with the DQ anyway to avoid any doubt.
    • Precedent H Detail: It needs incurred costs and estimated future costs for each litigation phase, verified by a statement of truth. If total budgeted costs are under £25,000 OR the stated claim value is under £50,000, you might only need the first page. Again, for “no value stated” claims, caution suggests a full Precedent H if unsure.
    • The Big Stick (CPR 3.14): Fail to file on time, and your recoverable costs for future work could be slashed to just court fees, unless the court orders otherwise. Relief is possible (Denton test) but not guaranteed.
    • Budget Discussion Reports (Precedent R): If budgets are filed, represented parties must file an agreed Precedent R no later than 7 days before the first CCMC.

The ambiguity around CPR 3.13 filing deadlines for “no value stated” claims is a real headache. Getting it wrong can be costly.

Scenario 2: The New Pilot Schemes (Claims From 6 April 2025)

For Part 7 claims issued on or after 6 April 2025 that fit the specific criteria of the new pilot schemes (PD 51ZG1, PD 51ZG2, and PD 51ZG3), the rules change. These pilots run for three years, until 6 April 2028. 

• • • New Forms: Say hello to Precedent Z (Simplified Costs Budget), Precedent RZ (Simplified Budget Discussion Report), and Precedent TZ (Simplified Variation Form). Precedent Z is expected to be much shorter than Precedent H. 
    • CPR 3.13 & 3.14 Don’t Apply: For claims in these pilots, the old filing and sanction rules are out. 
    • Pilot Filing Deadlines (generally, unless court orders otherwise):
      • Precedent Z: File and serve no later than 21 days before the first CCMC. 
      • Precedent RZ: Represented parties served with a Precedent Z file and serve no later than 7 days before the first CCMC. (PD 51ZG3 has a 14-day rule for defendants and claimants usually don’t file one ). 
    • Pilot Sanctions: If you don’t comply (e.g., fail to file Precedent Z), the court may impose sanctions, which may include limiting your recoverable costs to court fees. This is more discretionary than the old CPR 3.14.

Let’s break down the main pilots for “no value stated” claims:

1. Practice Direction 51ZG1 (Business and Property Courts / Work)

• • • Scope: Part 7 multi-track claims (issued 6 April 2025 – 6 April 2028) in the Business and Property Courts (BPC) of England and Wales, BPC in Manchester/Leeds, or “Business and Property work” in the County Court at Manchester, Leeds, or Central London.  
    • Key Rule for “No Value Stated” (Para 5): If a claim has no stated value, seeks only non-monetary relief, OR parties can’t agree if it’s £1m+, then unless the court orders otherwise, the claim is treated as having a value of £1 million or more.  
    • What this means:
      • If treated as >= £1 million: The court will not automatically make a Costs Management Order (CMO) unless it’s satisfied it’s necessary for justice and proportionate cost (PD 51ZG1, para 6(a)). If a CMO is made, the court directs the budget form (Precedent Z, H, or updated Z) (PD 51ZG1, para 6(b)). 
      • If treated as < £1 million (e.g., by court order or party agreement): At the CCMC, a CMO using Precedent Z is the default, unless a CMO isn’t required (PD 51ZG1, para 7(b)).  
    • Important: Regardless of this valuation, all represented parties (except litigants in person) must still file and serve a Precedent Z no later than 21 days before the first CCMC, unless the court says otherwise (PD 51ZG1, para 4). 

2. Practice Direction 51ZG2 (Certain County Court Claims <£1 million)

• • • Scope: Part 7 multi-track claims (issued 6 April 2025 – 6 April 2028) valued at less than £1 million, where costs management would normally apply, and which are not under PD 51ZG1 or QOCS rules (PD 51ZG3). This pilot applies to such claims in the County Court at Central London, or the Leeds or Bristol District Registries.
    • “No Value Stated”: PD 51ZG2 does not have the same default £1m+ valuation rule as PD 51ZG1. So, if a “no value stated” claim is in one of these County Courts and isn’t “Business & Property work,” the court will assess its notional value. If it’s deemed <£1m, PD 51ZG2 applies.
    • If PD 51ZG2 applies: Parties file Precedent Z (21 days before CCMC) and Precedent RZ (7 days before CCMC). A CMO using Precedent Z is the likely default (PD 51ZG2, paras 4, 5, 6). 

3. Practice Direction 51ZG3 (QOCS Cases in specific High Court Registries)

• • • Scope: Part 7 multi-track QOCS claims (issued during pilot period) in the District Registry at Manchester or Birmingham. 
    • All parties (except LiPs) file Precedent Z 21 days before CCMC. Defendants file Precedent RZ 14 days before CCMC. Claimants usually don’t file RZ. 
    • CMO for Defendant’s costs isn’t automatic.
    • Parties can give notice to seek a split trial or full Precedent H budgeting.

What if no CMO is made under the Pilot Schemes? If the court doesn’t make a CMO:

• • • The Precedent Z budgets are treated as costs estimates (PD44, paras 3.2-3.7 apply).
    • Parties usually need to file and serve an updated Precedent Z no later than 28 days before trial (or trial window/7 days before PTR, whichever is earlier), unless the court says otherwise.

The default valuation in PD 51ZG1 (para 5) for “no value stated” claims in BPC/designated B&P work is a big shift. It means costs management isn’t automatic if the claim is treated as £1m+. This will likely lead to arguments at the CCMC.

Real-World Examples & Strategic Thinking

Let’s see how this might play out:

A. Claim for Purely Non-Monetary Relief (e.g., an injunction, or a TOLATA claim for a declaration or order for sale).

• • • Under PD 51ZG1 (BPC/B&P work in specified CCs, issued on/after 6 April 2025):
      • Default: Treated as >= £1 million (PD 51ZG1, para 5).
      • Result: CMO not automatic. All file Precedent Z. CCMC decides if CMO is needed.
    • Under PD 51ZG2 (Specific CCs, not B&P, notional value <£1m, issued on/after 6 April 2025):
      • Court assesses notional value. If <£1m, PD 51ZG2 applies. Parties file Precedent Z. CMO with Precedent Z likely.
    • Outside Pilots (issued before 6 April 2025, or in non-pilot court):
      • Likely multi-track. Standard CPR Part 3 costs management. Precedent H 21 days before CCMC.

B. Claim Where Monetary Value is Genuinely Uncertain at Outset.

• • • Under PD 51ZG1: If parties can’t agree if value is £1m+, treated as >= £1 million by default (PD 51ZG1, para 5). Implications as above.
    • Under PD 51ZG2: Court assesses notional value. If <£1m, PD 51ZG2 regime (Precedent Z) applies.
    • Outside Pilots: Likely multi-track. Precedent H 21 days before CCMC.

C. Claim Where Value is Omitted but Could/Should Have Been Stated.

• • • Judicial View: Courts don’t like tactical omissions.
    • Impact: Could influence track allocation, costs management decisions (especially “unless court orders otherwise” clauses), and final costs recovery.

The “unless the court orders otherwise” in PD 51ZG1, para 5, will be a battleground. A party wanting a CMO (likely a defendant) will need to argue against the default >=£1m treatment or argue a CMO is needed anyway.  

For TOLATA claims, choice of court after April 2025 could be strategic. Issuing in a County Court designated for “Business and Property work” (e.g., Manchester, Leeds, Central London under PD 51ZG1 ) means the PD 51ZG1 default >=£1m rule applies to “no value stated” claims. Issue the same claim in a County Court under PD 51ZG2 (e.g., Bristol, or non-B&P list in Central London/Leeds) with a notional value <£1m, and PD 51ZG2’s simplified budgeting applies. 

Quick Comparison: “No Value Stated” Claims

Key Pointers for Your Practice

• • • Early Assessment is King: Even without a stated value, internally assess potential financial implications, complexity, and importance. This helps anticipate track and budgeting needs.
    • The DQ is Your Stage: For “no value stated” claims, the Directions Questionnaire is where you make your case for track allocation, using CPR 26.8(1) factors.
    • Talk to Your Opponent: Early discussion on notional value and the applicable costs regime can save contested CCMC hearings.
    • CCMC Prep: Be ready to explain why no value is stated. If under PD 51ZG1, be prepared to discuss the default >=£1m valuation and CMO appropriateness.
    • CRITICAL – Know Your Regime: Is it standard CPR or a pilot scheme? This depends on issue date, court, and claim nature.
    • Budget Diligently: Precedent H or Z, make it realistic, well-supported, and on time. Don’t forget the statement of truth.
    • Sanctions Awareness: Know the difference: CPR 3.14 (fairly automatic) vs. pilot schemes (discretionary, but can still be severe).
    • Litigants in Person (LiPs): They generally don’t file budgets, but represented parties must still serve their budgets on LiPs.

Even though Precedent Z is “simplified” , it still needs careful preparation. The core principles of proportionality and reasonableness remain. The simplification is more about the form and process, not a free pass on justifying your costs. 

The next few years, especially during the pilot schemes (April 2025 – April 2028), will be a learning curve. Keeping up with how these new rules are applied in pilot courts will be essential.  

The Future of Costs Budgeting

These pilot schemes are a testing ground, driven by the Civil Justice Council’s call for a “more flexible approach” to costs management. Costs budgeting, in some form, is clearly here for the long haul.

The success of these pilots, especially for “no value stated” claims, will depend on consistent judicial application and clear guidance. If deemed successful, they could well shape the future of costs budgeting nationwide. So, getting to grips with these changes now isn’t just about the next three years – it’s about preparing for the future of civil litigation costs.

Need help with a Part 7 claim or understanding these upcoming costs budgeting changes? Contact the team at tmclegal.co.uk for expert advice.