Rigley v Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd: Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Pending Fixed Costs Banding Reassignment Despite Part 36 Acceptance
Part 36 — 2026-01-01
A County Court decision confirming that CPR 36.14(5)(b) preserves the court's jurisdiction to determine a pending complexity band reassignment application after a Part 36 offer has been accepted, with the court reassigning the claim from Band 2 to Band 1.
Overview
Date: 2026 (handed down following an application issued 31 October, after an order received 28 October)
Court: County Court (Intermediate Track allocation)
Citation: Rigley v Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd 2026 WL 00992487
Nature of Proceedings: Personal injury claim allocated to the Intermediate Track. Defendant's application for reassignment of complexity band, heard after acceptance of a Part 36 offer.
Key Issues:
- Whether the court retains jurisdiction to determine a pending complexity band application after a Part 36 offer has been accepted and the claim has been stayed under CPR 36.14
- Whether CPR 36.14(5)(b) preserves the court's power to deal with costs questions notwithstanding such a stay
- Whether the court has a discretion to depart from the obvious complexity band where the claim could be tried within a day
---
The Facts
The claim was a personal injury action brought by the claimant against Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd. Liability was not in issue. Quantum was disputed. The claim had been allocated to the Intermediate Track and assigned to Complexity Band 2.
The defendant disagreed with the band assignment and applied for reconsideration. The defendant's position was that the case fell squarely within Complexity Band 1, principally because the matter could be tried within a single day and the issues, while contested on quantum, were not such as to take it out of the lowest band.
The original order was received on 28 October. The defendant's reconsideration application was issued on 31 October. The application therefore fell within the seven day window contemplated by the rules.
Before the application was determined, the defendant made a Part 36 offer. The claimant accepted that offer. The acceptance triggered the automatic stay under CPR 36.14. The pending reassignment application remained outstanding.
---
The Issue
The claimant resisted the application on two grounds:
First, that the acceptance of the Part 36 offer had stayed the proceedings and the court no longer had jurisdiction to deal with the band reassignment.
Second, that the defendant's offer had been calculated and made under a Complexity Band 2 fixed costs regime. The offer had not been expressed to be subject to determination of the pending application or to any future revision of the band. The defendant should not, the claimant argued, be permitted to go behind its own offer in order to reduce the level of fixed recoverable costs payable to the claimant.
The defendant relied on CPR 36.14(5)(b), which provides that the stay arising on acceptance does not affect the court's power to deal with questions of costs.
---
The Decision
The court rejected the claimant's jurisdictional argument and reassigned the claim to Complexity Band 1.
1. A stayed claim remains within the court's jurisdiction
The court was unequivocal on the first point. A stay does not extinguish a claim. The proceedings remain extant and the court retains jurisdiction over them notwithstanding the stay. As the judge put it:
> "I reject that argument. A claim that is stayed is still extant and within the court's jurisdiction and as long as the claim is in existence, stayed or otherwise, the court has a jurisdiction to look at the matter."
That alone disposed of the threshold objection. The application could be heard.
2. CPR 36.14(5)(b) makes the costs jurisdiction explicit
The court then addressed the more interesting argument, namely whether the defendant could properly seek to reduce the band, and therefore the costs payable, after having made an offer that had been accepted on the prevailing band.
The judge accepted the force of the claimant's submission on its face but held that the rule resolved the question:
> "However, attractive as the argument may be upon the face, I am afraid I am against the claimant's advocate because of the provisions of CPR 36.14(5)(b)..."
The text of the rule is that any stay arising under it:
> "...will not affect the power of the court—to deal with any question of costs (including interest on costs) relating to the proceedings."
The defendant's submission was that the court always retained a discretion as to costs, and that CPR 36.14(5)(b) made that discretion explicit. The judge agreed:
> "I believe he is right. I think the court does have a discretion on costs and therefore I am prepared to set aside that part of the order putting the costs into band 2 and I am going to allocate the costs to band 1."
3. The court has a discretion on band assignment
On the substantive question of band, the judge took the view that a personal injury claim that could be tried within a day, with liability admitted and quantum the only live issue, sat naturally within Complexity Band 1. The court accepted that there was a discretion to allocate to a different band, and indeed had originally done so by placing the matter in Band 2, but was satisfied that on reconsideration Band 1 was the correct designation.
4. The application was made in time
The court noted in passing that the reconsideration application had been issued within seven days of receipt of the original order, and was therefore properly before the court on its merits.
---
Analysis
The decision is short but it carries real consequences. Three points are worth drawing out.
The first is that the costs jurisdiction preserved by CPR 36.14(5)(b) is broader than is sometimes assumed. The rule is most often invoked in the context of routine matters such as assessment of costs or interest. Rigley confirms that it extends to band assignment within the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime, and there is no obvious reason why it would not extend further still to any live application that bears on the costs payable, provided the application was made before acceptance.
The second is that an accepted Part 36 offer is not the end of the costs story where there is something already in the court's in-tray. The natural assumption, and one made by the claimant here, is that acceptance crystallises the position. Rigley shows that it does not. A pending application that affects the level or basis of recoverable costs survives the stay and can be determined against the offeror or the offeree.
The third is the timing point. The court did not need to decide what the position would be where the application is made after, rather than before, acceptance of the Part 36 offer. The reasoning in the judgment turns on the application already being properly before the court. It is at least arguable that a fresh application made post acceptance, and seeking to revisit a matter that the parties had treated as settled, would receive a less sympathetic hearing.
---
Practical Implications
For Costs Lawyers
1. Audit the court file before advising on Part 36 acceptance. Where a client is considering accepting an offer, check whether any applications are pending that touch on costs, including band reassignment, costs management, or relief from sanctions. Acceptance will not extinguish those applications.
2. The fixed costs you expect on acceptance may not be the fixed costs you receive. A receiving party who accepts an offer made when the claim sits in Band 2 is exposed to a downward reassignment if the paying party has applied for reconsideration. Build that risk into the advice.
3. Use CPR 36.14(5)(b) actively, not just defensively. The rule is more than a saving provision. It is a positive grant of jurisdiction to the court to deal with costs questions notwithstanding a stay. It is available to receiving parties just as much as to paying parties, and may be deployed to push for an upward band reassignment after acceptance where appropriate.
4. Resist by reference to timing where the application is fresh. If a paying party tries to bring a band application after acceptance, the Rigley reasoning does not support it. The judgment turns on the application being live at the point of acceptance. Late applications should be challenged on that basis.
For Litigation Practitioners
1. Resolve outstanding applications before making or accepting a Part 36 offer. If both sides are content to settle, agree how to dispose of any pending costs application as part of the settlement, or seek directions before acceptance. Do not assume the application falls away.
2. State the costs basis on which a Part 36 offer is made. A defendant who is content with Band 2 fixed costs should say so in the offer. A defendant who reserves the right to pursue a band reassignment should say so too. Rigley shows that silence will not protect either party.
3. Consider the strength of any pending band application before relying on it. Rigley confirms a discretion to reassign, but it remains a discretion. A claim that genuinely sits within the higher band will not be reassigned simply because the trial estimate is one day. The defendant in Rigley succeeded on the merits, not on the procedure alone.
4. Watch the seven day window. Reconsideration applications must be made promptly. The defendant in Rigley applied within three days of receiving the order. A defendant who delays may find both the band and the level of recoverable costs locked in.
---
Conclusion
Rigley v Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd is a short county court decision but its reasoning is significant. CPR 36.14(5)(b) is given full effect as a substantive grant of jurisdiction over costs questions, with the result that an accepted Part 36 offer does not, by itself, draw a line under the costs payable. Where an application is already pending, the court can and will determine it.
The financial impact is not theoretical. The difference between Complexity Band 1 and Complexity Band 2 fixed recoverable costs on an Intermediate Track personal injury claim is substantial. Parties advising on the acceptance, or making, of a Part 36 offer in a fixed costs case need to take the position of the court file into account before treating the costs position as settled.
The point to watch is the line between a pre acceptance application, which on the Rigley analysis survives the stay, and a post acceptance application, which on the better view does not. Future decisions are likely to test that boundary.
---
Citation: Rigley v Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd 2026 WL 00992487 (Westlaw)
Full judgment available at: Rigley v Zurich Insurance Company (UK) Ltd approved judgment
Related Specialist Support
View all case law updates | Our services | Contact us