Fixed Recoverable Costs Explained: The Modern FRC Regime

Updated: March 2026

The civil litigation costs landscape has changed significantly following the expansion of Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC). The reforms introduced a wider regime applying to many claims previously subject to standard costs assessment. For solicitors, insurers and litigation professionals, understanding the modern FRC framework is essential when assessing litigation risk, settlement strategy and recoverable costs exposure.

This guide explains how the current fixed costs regime operates, the introduction of the intermediate track, and the strategic implications for both receiving and paying parties.

For a detailed overview of the intermediate track reforms, see our guide to Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs.

The Expansion of Fixed Recoverable Costs

Historically, fixed costs applied primarily to limited categories of lower value litigation. The civil justice reforms expanded the regime significantly, introducing broader application across claims valued up to £100,000 and establishing new procedural tracks.

The intention behind the reforms was to promote predictability, proportionality and cost control within civil litigation. The result is a framework where many cases that would previously have been subject to detailed assessment now fall within structured fixed cost regimes. These developments have significant implications for litigation strategy and cost exposure.

The Intermediate Track and the Modern FRC Framework

One of the most significant developments was the introduction of the Intermediate Track, designed for claims valued between the fast track and the multi-track.

The intermediate track introduces structured cost recovery through complexity bands and defined stages of litigation.

Each band determines the recoverable costs available at key litigation stages, including:

• issue

• post-defence

• case management

• trial preparation

• trial

A detailed explanation of how these bands operate is set out in our article on Intermediate Track Complexity Bands.

Understanding how a case is allocated within these bands is often central to costs strategy.

Fixed Recoverable Costs Tables

The modern FRC regime relies heavily on structured tables that determine recoverable costs at different stages of litigation.

These tables vary depending on:

• claim value

• track allocation

• complexity band

• stage of proceedings reached

For practitioners assessing likely cost exposure, the relevant tables are often the starting point.

We have set out the current tables and their practical implications in our guide to the Intermediate Track Costs Table.

These tables provide a clear framework for predicting recoverable costs in many intermediate track cases.

Fixed Costs and Part 36 Strategy

The interaction between Part 36 offers and fixed recoverable costs can have significant consequences for both claimants and defendants. Recent case law demonstrates that timing of acceptance and the stage of litigation can materially affect the costs recoverable under the fixed costs regime.

In some circumstances, late acceptance of a Part 36 offer may limit recovery to the level of fixed costs that would have been payable at an earlier procedural stage.

A recent Court of Appeal decision addressing these issues is examined in our case analysis: Part 36 and Fixed Recoverable Costs: Paying Party Lessons

For litigators, Part 36 timing has become a central strategic issue within fixed costs litigation.

Strategic Issues for Paying Parties

The expansion of fixed recoverable costs has also altered the strategic approach taken by paying parties when defending bills of costs.

Key issues now include:

• whether the claim properly falls within the FRC regime

• whether allocation to the intermediate track is correct

• whether the correct complexity band has been applied

• whether any exceptions to fixed costs apply

Where disputes arise regarding allocation or banding, costs exposure can change significantly. Many of these issues arise in the context of detailed assessment and costs disputes. Our guide to Paying Party Strategy at Detailed Assessment examines how these challenges arise in practice.

When Fixed Recoverable Costs Do Not Apply

Despite the expansion of the FRC regime, there remain situations where standard detailed assessment may still apply. Examples include:

• claims exceeding FRC value thresholds

• exceptional complexity arguments

• cases allocated to the multi-track

• costs incurred outside the scope of fixed regimes

In such cases, traditional principles of proportionality and reasonableness remain central.

The Continuing Role of Costs Specialists

Even within fixed costs regimes, specialist costs advice remains important.

Issues frequently arise concerning:

• track allocation disputes

• complexity band challenges

• scope of recoverable costs

• interaction between fixed costs and Part 36• recoverability of disbursements

For solicitors and insurers managing litigation exposure, early costs analysis can significantly affect settlement strategy and litigation risk.

Conclusion

Fixed Recoverable Costs now form a central part of the modern civil litigation landscape.

The expansion of the regime, the introduction of the intermediate track and the increasing importance of Part 36 strategy mean that both claimants and defendants must understand how the FRC framework operates. For litigation professionals, a clear understanding of fixed costs tables, track allocation and strategic implications is essential when managing costs risk.

Further reading:

Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs

Intermediate Track Costs Table

Paying Party Detailed Assessment Strategy