The small claims limit was increased to £3000 (except for personal injury claims) in January 1996.

Lord Woolf, in his final report, 'Access to justice', made no further specific proposals for small claims, only suggesting that the position might be further reviewed when the outcome of research currently being conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Society became available.

The LCD is collecting statistical information on cases dealt with by arbitration, on the number, types and outcome of applications to rescind the reference to arbitration and is planning some further qualitative research, looking at litigants' experience of the procedure, in comparison with claims dealt with by trial.The Law Society and the Housing Law Practitioners Association are carrying out some research on housing cases referred to arbitration.

The results will be published in the Gazette in due course.

For further information on thi s project contact Karen Mackay in the professional policy team on 0171 320 5702.

There are, however, two practical problems that have arisen with regard to the small claims jurisdiction.Definition of personal injury for the purpose of CCR ord 19, r 3(1A)(b)Personal injury is not defined in the County Court (Amendment) Rules 1995.

The High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991 describes personal injuries as including disease, impairment of physical or mental condition and death.

There is no dispute that general damages for pain and suffering (including psychiatric injury) and loss of amenity as a result of an accident or injury will fall within the definition of 'a claim for damages in personal injuries' for the purposes of the small claims limit.

However, the position is not clear with regard to:-- Other general damages for, eg loss of enjoyment of a spoiled holiday.-- Items of special damage stemming from the injury, eg loss of earnings.-- Damages to property and related money loss claims arising from the same incident/accident, but not stemming from the injury, eg damage to a motor vehicle.The Society has been advised that some defendants are arguing that the categories of loss above are not included within the definition in the rules and that, therefore, the pain and suffering element of a claim alone needs to have a value of over £1000 before the case should not be automatically referred to arbitration and/or for costs to be recoverable, including when a case is settled by negotiation pre-proceedings.

The Society has been trying to persuade the Lord Chancellor's Department and the county court rule committee to clarify this unsatisfactory position.

The original proposals from the rule committee did include a definition of personal injury damages, but for reasons that have not been explained to the Society, this was dropped when the rules were finalised.

The LCD currently takes the view that 'interpretation of the rules is a matter for the courts', although the Lord Chancellor commented at an Association of Personal Injury Lawyers conference in May that it was 'a nonsense' to exclude from the definition of personal injury items of special damage that stem directly from the injuries.The Society's position is that it is illogical and impracticable to separate out the losses incurred by one person arising from an incident/accident and that any claim which includes a claim for damages for pain and suffering/loss of amenity, where the total damages reasonably claimed exceed £1000, should be excluded from the automatic reference to arbitration.

The courts are simply not equipped to disaggregate claims before deciding whether a case should be referred.The Judicial Studies Board is understood to be preparing guidance for district judges on the criteria for rescinding the automatic reference, but this is not currently publicly available.

Practitioners are invited to tell the Society of specific cases where there has been argument over the definition of personal injury, particularly when this has caused practical difficulties or increased costs.

Unliquidated claimsThe LCD has advised the courts that where a plaintiff has either indicated on form N2 that the claim is worth less than £5000, or has not given an indication of the value, and/or has not made it clear (by failing to tick the appropriate boxes) whether he or she wants the case dealt with by arbitration or trial, the court should assume that the case falls within the small claims jurisdiction and should refer it to a district judge for arbitratio n.The Society disagrees that this is an appropriate way to proceed because:-- A litigant is entitled to have his or her case conducted under the full county court procedures, including a trial, unless the claim clearly falls within the ambit of the small claims jurisdiction, or he or she and the other party specifically choose arbitration.-- An incorrect reference to arbitration could cause considerable problems later, when a plaintiff realises the consequences of failing to complete the form correctly and possibly seeks to reverse the court's decision, or when the defendant objects.The Society has suggested to the Lord Chancellor's Department that incomplete forms should simply be returned, or clarification sought by telephone, but the LCD says that the courts have no power to do this.Practitioners should clearly make sure court forms are fully completed but again, if they are aware of difficulties in specific cases caused by courts following this guidance, please advise the Society.

Practitioners responding to this note should send letters/comments to Suzanne Burn, Secretary to the Civil Litigation Committee, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL, DX 56 Lond/Chancery Ln.