An authority on assignment to complexity bands in the Fast track and Intermediate track – at last!

David Calvert was recently instructed by Horwich Farrelly in respect of their application to challenge the paper assignment of a fast track case to band 3, arguing it should have been assigned to band 2.

The decision ( in favour of the Defendants) is one of the first from a senior judge and it was heard before the Designated Circuit Judge for Watford County Court, His Honour Judge Murch.

The background to the application was that the Claimant (instructing Bond Turner solicitors) sustained a fairly straightforward road traffic accident in 2024 when he was driving his moped.

The moped sustained damage which subsequently led to a claim for credit hire. There was also a modest claim for personal injury. Total damages were between £15,000 – £20,000.

It was not disputed between the parties upon allocation that the case was suitable for the Fast Track, however the Claimant contended in their questionnaire that given that “causation and quantum were in dispute” that it should be assigned to complexity band 3 pursuant to CPR 26.15 – the Defendant argued for band 2.

The Defendant argued for band 2 on the basis that  this was a straightforward accident where breach of duty was admitted, it was started in the RTA portal and therefore the starting point, under the rules, was that band 2 was appropriate complexity band.

Further, if there was a dispute about the band upon considering the factors at CPR 26.13 (a)-(i), then band 2 was still appropriate.

David further argued that, but for the claim for personal injury,  this is the sort of case that would ordinarily  have been allocated by some judges to the Small Claims Track, and therefore its complexity was modest.

Another factor in the case was the reliance by the Defendant upon engineering evidence to support their contention that the moped damage was both inconsistent and minor, such that any damage that there was could have been remedied cheaply and quickly on a temporary basis without the need for credit hire.

The case was assigned to band 2 by a District Judge in his usual box work; the application was not an appeal but rather to challenge that paper assignment.

Unusually for a case of this nature the application was heard before a Circuit Judge. The DCJ noted (but not part of his judgement) that a number of these applications were coming before his District Judges and therefore he felt appropriate to list this matter before him.

HHJ Murch agreed with David’s submissions, he noted that the engineering evidence was paper only and that neither party were intending to call oral evidence from these experts. He also noted that the Claimant`s original request in the DQ for band 3 was not supported by any substantive reasoning in support.

He made reference in his judgment to David’s contention as to allocation to the Small Claim track ( but for the PI) and as a consequence he re-assigned the case back to band 2.

Given that CPR 26:14 also applies to the intermediate track then this decision applies to both tracks when it comes to assignment of the  complexity bands.

A transcript of the judgment (Jaykumar Kiritkumar Bhavsar v Marek Wrobel, 15^th December 2025, HHJ Murch, Watford County Court) is to be requested.