THE EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH COLLINS V THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THAMES VALLEY POLICE [2026] EWHC 117 (SCCO)

Claims against the police for wrongful interference with goods — encompassing conversion or trespass to chattels — fall within CPR 26.9(10)(e)(i) as claims including an intentional tort, requiring multi-track allocation and excluding fixed recoverable costs.

  • A claim against the police which includes a claim for an intentional tort, such as conversion or trespass to chattels, falls within CPR 26.9(10)(e) and is mandatorily allocated to the multi-track, thereby taking it outside the scope of the fixed recoverable costs regimes in CPR 45. [19]
  • For the purposes of the transitional provisions extending fixed recoverable costs, the term “proceedings are issued” includes the issue of Part 8 costs-only proceedings; a “claim” subsists until all elements, including costs, are concluded. [34]
  • Procedural changes to costs regimes, such as the extension of fixed recoverable costs, are not generally subject to the rule against retrospective legislation as they govern process rather than substantive rights. [30, 34]
  • Acceptance of a Part 36 offer which provides for costs “in accordance with rule 36.13” does not constitute an express agreement to contract out of the fixed recoverable costs regime, as the entitlement conferred is to costs as determined by the Rules as a whole. [37]
  • The phrase “includes a claim for” in CPR 26.9(10)(e) is inclusive, not exclusive; a cause of action need not be the primary or exclusive characterisation of the claim for the mandatory multi-track allocation provision to apply. [19]

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption