Civil Procedure: Track Allocation, Costs Management, and Fixed Recoverable Costs

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering civil litigation track allocation, complexity bands, fixed recoverable costs (FRC), costs management orders (CPR 3.15), budget revision, and costs capping orders.

Small Claims Track

The procedural track governing lower-value civil claims up to $£10,000$, including personal injury claims up to $£10,000$ and residential housing disrepair claims where both damages and repair costs do not exceed $£1,000$ (CPR 26.9(1)–(4), CPR 27).

Fast Track

The procedural track for civil claims valued between $£10,000$ and $£25,000$, characterised by trials lasting no more than 1 day, oral expert evidence limited to 2 disciplines, and 1 expert per party per discipline (CPR 26.9(5)–(6), CPR 28).

Intermediate Track

The procedural track introduced on 1 October 2023 for claims valued between $£25,000$ and $£100,000$ suitable for trials lasting no more than 3 days, with a maximum of 2 experts per party and no more than 3 parties (CPR 26.9(7)–(9), CPR 28).

Multi-Track

The procedural track for claims exceeding $£100,000$ in value or those unsuitable for allocation to the fast track or intermediate track due to factual, legal, or procedural complexity (CPR 26.9(10)–(12), CPR 29).

Disregarded Items in Claim Valuation

Factors excluded by the court when calculating claim value for track allocation: contributory negligence, interest, costs, sums for which summary judgment has already been entered, and distinct items with admitted liability or agreed between the parties.

Fast Track Complexity Band 1

The band under CPR 26.15 assigned to defended debt claims and road traffic accident (RTA) related non-personal injury claims.

Fast Track Complexity Band 2

The band under CPR 26.15 assigned to RTA personal injury claims that are or should have been started under the RTA Protocol, and personal injury claims subject to the Pre-action Protocol for Resolution of Package Travel Claims.

Fast Track Complexity Band 3

The band under CPR 26.15 assigned to RTA personal injury claims outside the RTA Protocol, employer's liability (accident) and public liability personal injury claims, possession claims, and other money claims.

Fast Track Complexity Band 4

The band under CPR 26.15 assigned to employer's liability disease claims (excluding noise-induced hearing loss), complex possession and housing disrepair claims, property and building disputes, professional negligence claims, and any fast track claim that is nonetheless complex.

Intermediate Track Complexity Band 1

The band under CPR 26.16 assigned to claims where only one issue is in dispute and the trial is not expected to exceed 1 day, including defended debt claims, RTA non-personal injury claims, and personal injury claims where only liability or quantum is contested.

Intermediate Track Complexity Band 4

The band under CPR 26.16 assigned to claims normally allocated to the intermediate track that are unsuitable for bands 1 to 3, including personal injury claims involving serious issues of fact or law.

CPR 26.18

The civil procedure rule governing reallocation and reassignment; once directions have been given, reallocation from the intermediate track requires exceptional reasons, and reassignment to a different complexity band requires an operative change in circumstances.

Notice of Allocation

The formal notification issued by the court under CPR 26.17 confirming the specific track and complexity band to which a civil proceeding has been allocated.

Directions Questionnaires (Form N180 and Form N181)

Court questionnaires filed following provisional allocation; Form N180 must be completed within $14\text{ days}$ for small claims, whereas Form N181 must be completed within $28\text{ days}$ for all other tracks (CPR 26.4(6)).

CPR 45 Section VI

The section of the Civil Procedure Rules setting out fixed recoverable costs for all fast track claims across 4 complexity bands, calculated pursuant to Table 12 of Practice Direction 45.

CPR 45 Section VII

The section of the Civil Procedure Rules setting out fixed recoverable costs for intermediate track claims across 4 complexity bands, calculated pursuant to Table 14 of Practice Direction 45.

CPR 45 Section IX

The consolidated section of the Civil Procedure Rules setting out allowable recoverable disbursements for claims governed by Sections IV, VI, VII, and VIII of Part 45.

CPR 45.10

The rule allowing a party to seek costs exceeding Fixed Recoverable Costs by $20\%$ where the vulnerability of a party or witness resulted in additional necessary work.

CPR 45.1(3)(b)

The provision introduced on 6 April 2024 permitting parties to contract out of the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime by express written agreement.

Late Settlement Advocacy Fees (CPR 45)

Rules introduced on 6 April 2024 entitling parties to recover $100\%$ or $75\%$ of fixed trial advocacy fees in the fast track (Table 12) and intermediate track (Table 14) depending on how close to the trial date a settlement or vacation occurs.

Precedent U

The document under Practice Direction 45 mandatory from 1 October 2024 for determining fixed recoverable costs where the formal determination process applies.

Costs Management Order (CMO)

An order made under CPR 3.15 whereby the court formally records agreements and approves or revises prospective costs budgets (Precedent H), binding the parties at standard basis detailed assessment under CPR 3.18.

CPR 3.12 Exclusions

Statutory exemptions from costs management in Part 7 multi-track cases, including claims valued at $£10\text{ million}$ or more, claims commenced on behalf of a child after 6 April 2016, claims subject to fixed or scale costs, and cases where the court orders otherwise.

CPR 3.14 Automatic Sanction

The default consequence providing that any party failing to file a costs budget on time or at all is deemed to have filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.

Precedent H

The standardized form annexed to Practice Direction 3D on which costs-managed parties must set out both incurred costs and prospective estimated costs across each procedural phase.

Precedent R

The Budget Discussion Report required under CPR 3.13(2) to be filed $7\text{ days}$ prior to the first CCMC, detailing agreed figures, disputed figures, and a summary of objections per phase.

CPR 3.15(5) Budgeting Cost Cap

The statutory cap restricting recoverable costs for completing Precedent H to the higher of $£1,000$ or $1\%$ of the total incurred and budgeted costs, with all other costs of the budgeting process limited to $2\%$ of that same total.

CPR 3.15(8)

The rule dictating that a Costs Management Order controls the total figures allowed for each phase, and that the court's role at a CCMC is not to fix or approve individual hourly rates.

Good Reason to Depart

The standard under CPR 3.18(b) that a party must satisfy before the court on standard basis detailed assessment may depart upward or downward from an approved or agreed costs budget figure.

Precedent T

The prescribed document under CPR 3.15A used to submit proposed prospective revisions to an approved costs budget following an operative significant development.

Significant Development

An objective, material change occurring after budget approval that impacts the scope, scale, or nature of litigation and could not have been reasonably anticipated when the budget was set (Churchill v Boot).

Costs Capping Order (CCO)

An exceptional order under CPR 3.19 limiting the amount of future costs (including disbursements) that a party may recover under a subsequent costs order.

CPR 3.19(5) Three-Part Test

The three cumulative conditions required to make a Costs Capping Order: (1) it is in the interests of justice; (2) there is a substantial risk of costs being disproportionately incurred; and (3) that risk cannot be adequately controlled by ordinary case management directions and detailed assessment.

Precedent Z

The streamlined costs budget form utilized under the Practice Direction 51ZG3 Pilot (6 April 2025 to 6 April 2028) for specified High Court QOCS personal injury claims in Birmingham and Manchester.

Indemnity Principle in Costs Budgeting

The fundamental costs rule capping a receiving party's recovery to their actual legal liability to their own solicitor, preventing recovery of an approved budget sum if actual expenditure is less.

Substantially Incomplete Phase

A procedural phase where a substantial amount of anticipated work was never performed, distinguished in Utting v City College Norwich from mere budget underspend.

CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2015]

The High Court decision establishing that incurred costs inform future phase allowances, allowing the court to impose a pound-for-pound reduction on budgeted figures if incurred costs are assessed above a benchmark figure.

Yirenkyi v Ministry of Defence [2018]

The authority holding that a Costs Management Order must set a single composite total for each phase, making it an error of law for a court to approve specific fee-earner hours or reserve elements to detailed assessment.

Vertannes v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2018]

The ruling establishing that an approved Costs Management Order does not lapse when a case progresses, requiring a party to draw a phased bill of costs for detailed assessment.

Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017]

The Court of Appeal decision confirming that approved budgeted figures are binding on detailed assessment absent good reason, whereas incurred costs are unapproved and remain open to full assessment.

Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd [2013]

The case establishing that a good reason to depart requires a fundamental impact on the litigation, that higher counsel or expert fees are not a good reason, and that variation applications must be made immediately.

Queensgate Place Ltd v Solid Star Ltd (No. 3) [2024]

The authority deciding that while a court cannot approve a CPR 3.15A budget variation after a trial or hearing has concluded, the unbudgeted expenditure may be argued as a good reason to depart on detailed assessment under CPR 3.18.

Barts Health NHS Trust v Salmon [2019]

The minority county court decision holding that spending less than an approved phase figure is, by operation of the indemnity principle, itself capable of being a good reason to depart.

Chapman v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2020]

The decision rejecting Salmon on the grounds that treating mere underspend as a good reason creates a perverse incentive for solicitors to deliberately overspend and exceed phase caps to avoid detailed assessment.

Utting v City College Norwich [2020]

The Senior Courts Costs Office ruling confirming that an underspend within a completed phase is not a good reason to depart, contrasting it strictly with phases left substantially incomplete.

Lejonvarn v Burgess [2020]

The Court of Appeal authority ruling that approved costs budgets and CPR 3.18 do not apply when costs are ordered and assessed on the indemnity basis.

Churchill v Boot [2016]

The decision establishing the reasonable anticipation test, holding that an increase in claim value or foreseeable additional disclosure is not a significant development if it does not materially alter the work required.

Thompson v NSL Ltd [2021]

The decision establishing that an increase in claim value from $£150,000$ to $£3.9\text{ million}$, coupled with increased factual demands and trial delay from 20 to 37 months, constituted a significant development justifying budget variation.

Yelland v Space Engineering Services Ltd [2023]

The High Court decision holding that promptness in applying to revise a costs budget following covert surveillance runs from the date the surveillance is disclosed, not when the footage was obtained.

Persimmon Homes Ltd v Osborne Clark LLP [2021]

The authority where an application to increase an approved costs budget by $£1.3\text{ million}$ based on Part 18 requests and additional CMCs was refused for lack of promptness.

Willis v MRJ Rundell & Associates Ltd [2013]

The decision where Coulson J refused to approve combined costs budgets of approximately $£1.6\text{ million}$ in an $£1.1\text{ million}$ professional negligence claim on the grounds that they were disproportionate to the sums at stake.

XX & Anor v Young & Anor [2025]

The SCCO ruling establishing that the assessment of proportionality under CPR 44.3(5) is an overarching stand-back exercise conducted after line-by-line detailed assessment, rather than a substitute for it.

Aldred v Cham [2019]

The Court of Appeal ruling establishing that counsel's quantum advice for an infant approval is not recoverable under CPR 45.29I(2)(h), as being a child is an attribute of the party rather than a particular feature of the dispute.

Coleman v Townsend [2020]

The SCCO decision finding that counsel's abated brief fee for a matter settling the day before trial was not recoverable under the pre-April 2024 fixed recoverable costs regime because the trial advocacy phase had not commenced.

Various Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008]

The toxic tort group litigation where the court exceptionally granted a Costs Capping Order and analyzed the constituent elements of each party's costs estimates to set the cap.

Thomas & Ors v PGI Group Ltd [2021]

The High Court decision refusing a defendant's application for a Costs Capping Order because capping claimant expenditure would introduce inequality, noting costs budgeting was the superior mechanism.

PXT v Atere-Roberts [2024]

The High Court ruling affirming the court's judicial discretion to direct costs budgeting even in exempt child personal injury cases where budgeting offers mutual management benefits.

ST v ZY [2022]

The Costs Office decision reinforcing a solicitor's professional duty to inform the client immediately if an approved costs budget phase is exceeded, particularly where damages may be used to satisfy any shortfall.