Lewis Rigley v Zurich Insurance Company (UK) Ltd

	No Substantial Judicial Treatment

Court
County Court (Middlesbrough)
 
Judgment Date
10 February 2026
 
In The County Court at Middlesbrough
Claim No: 212DC926, 2026 WL 00992487
Before: Deputy District Judge Gibson
10 February 2026
Start Time: 11.49 Finish Time: 11.57

Representation
 	Ms Walker appeared for the Claimant
 	Mr Colin Richmond (instructed by DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd) for the Defendant .
Deputy District Judge Gibson
 
1.  This is an application by the defendant and I start off saying that there is some query as to whether it is to set aside an order, or to vary an order, or to vary part of an order. I think what is very clear is the application is under CPR 3.3(5) and the application relates to the banding that the court made and it is clear from the application that the defendant challenges not the fact that the case was allocated to the intermediate band or track but the fact that it was allocated to band 2 rather than band 1 and that is the basis of the order that the defendant seeks, they want that changed. I take the view, whether you are talking about variation or setting aside or whatever, that querying that is an exercise in semantics, it is quite clear what the defendant is seeking.
 
2.  The basis upon which the defendant seeks to look at that decision under 3.3(5) is not a review of a decision, the rules are clear, it is a consideration of the issue itself and I am referred to 26.16, CPR 26.16 table 2. It is quite clear from the papers that this is a personal injury claim listed for no more than a day, the liability is not in dispute and quantum is in dispute. On the face of it that sits within complexity band 1. That does not mean to say that the court could not allocate it to a different band, as indeed the court did, allocated it to band 2, but the defendant was within its rights to challenge that and has challenged it and the application, I am satisfied, was made within seven days of the original order being received on 28 October, the application I think was made on 31 October.
 
3.  Now, what has then transpired is, whilst that application was pending, the defendant made an offer to settle and that offer to settle under Part 36 was made on 22 December and accepted on 6 January 2026 and on behalf of the claimant it says well, 36.13 applies, we accepted your offer and the effect of our accepting your offer is that the claim is stayed, the court has no jurisdiction. 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.
 
4.  However, the further argument the claimant makes is the one that I think troubles me the most and what it says is this. Look, you made an offer to settle, the claim was already at that point allocated to band 2, you made your offer and nowhere in your offer did you say subject to determination of band 2 costs or subject to the court considering your application and the point about Part 36 was you made an offer to settle under a fixed costs regime when the case was allocated to band 2 and we accepted that offer and that is the basis of our settlement and you cannot go behind it.
 
5.  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) and Mr Richmond, I think, for the defence is right to point out that provision which says: 
”Any stay arising under this rule will not affect the power of the court—to deal with any question of costs (including interest on costs) relating to the proceedings.”
 
6.  Mr Richmond says you always have a discretion, judge, and in any event 36.14(5)(b) makes explicit that which is in question. 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.
 
(For continuation of proceedings after judgment see separate transcript)

Crown copyright