Summary of the Case

The case of Executors of the Estate of Kenneth Collins v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2026] EWHC 117 (SCCO) (23 January 2026), concerned a dispute as to whether the Claimant was entitled to recover costs assessed on the standard basis or was limited to Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRCs).

Background

In 2015, the Defendant, Thames Valley Police, arrested the Claimant on suspicion of stealing a mobile phone from a taxi driver. When the Police attended the Claimant’s property to arrest him, a number of firearms and ammunition were found and seized.

Following criminal convictions in 2017, some firearms were made subject to a destruction order, while others were not. The Claimant subsequently applied to the Police for the return of the remaining firearms. These requests were refused and, on 6^th November 2018, the Claimant was informed by letter that the firearms had been destroyed.

The Claimant therefore brought a claim against Thames Valley Police for negligence and/or wrongful interference with goods in relation to the destruction of the firearms, valuing his losses at approximately £228,000.

The Defendant effectively admitted liability in principle in 2020.

The substantive claim later settled when the Claimant accepted a Part 36 offer in the sum of £32,500 in February 2023, before proceedings were issued.

Costs could not be agreed, resulting in the Claimant issuing Part 8 costs-only proceedings on 31 December 2024. On 3^rd February 2025, the Defendant served an Acknowledgment of Service indicating an intention to contest the making of an order for assessed costs.

Issues Before the Court

The Court considered three questions:

1. Was the claim excluded from the FRC regime because it fell within CPR 26.9(10)(e)?
2. Did the transitional provisions governing the expansion of FRCs prevent FRCs from applying because the substantive claim settled before proceedings were issued?
3. Did the Part 36 settlement amount to an agreement between the parties to exclude FRCs?

Issue 1: Did the claim include an intentional tort?

The Claimant argued that pursuant to CPR 26.9(10)(e)(i), claims against the police which include an intentional tort must be allocated to the multi-track. Since FRCs only apply to cases that would ordinarily be allocated to the fast or intermediate tracks, the regime could not apply.

The Defendant argued that the claim was one of negligence and that the reference to wrongful interference with goods did not amount to an intentional tort claim.

The judge agreed with the Claimant.

Issue 2: Did the transitional provisions make FRCs apply?

The Claimant argued that the substantive claim settled before proceedings were issued and that the 2023 FRC reforms applied only to non-personal injury claims where proceedings were issued on or after 1 October 2023. Accordingly, the later Part 8 costs proceedings should not bring the substantive claim within the FRC regime.

The Defendant argued that the Part 8 costs-only proceedings issued in December 2024 constituted a “claim” for the purposes of the transitional provisions. Because those proceedings were issued after 1 October 2023, the Defendant contended that FRCs applied.

The judge agreed with the Defendant on this point.

Issue 3: Did the Part 36 settlement contract out of FRCs?

The Claimant argued that the accepted Part 36 offer provided that costs would be payable pursuant to CPR 36.13, which states that costs are to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. The Claimant therefore contended that the parties had expressly agreed that standard-basis costs would apply.

The Defendant argued that acceptance of a Part 36 offer merely entitles a party to recover costs in accordance with the CPR generally and does not amount to an agreement to disapply the FRC regime.

The judge agreed with the Defendant.

Overall Outcome

The Claimant ultimately succeeded.

The judge held that the claim included an intentional tort against the police and therefore fell within CPR 26.9(10)(e)(i). As a result, the claim would have been allocated to the multi-track and was therefore outside the FRC regime. The Claimant was entitled to recover costs assessed on the standard basis, if not agreed.

However, the judge also clarified that the post-October 2023 transitional provisions would otherwise have brought the claim within the FRC regime, and that acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not, of itself, amount to an agreement to contract out of FRCs.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.