Small Claims vs Fast Track vs Intermediate Track vs Multi-Track
A guide to the four civil claim tracks in the County Court and High Court, covering financial value thresholds, costs rules, procedural requirements, and which track is appropriate for your case.
Overview
When a civil claim is defended in the County Court (or in some High Court proceedings), the court allocates the case to one of four tracks under CPR Part 26. Track allocation is one of the most important procedural decisions in civil litigation because it determines the procedural timetable, the formality of the hearing, and — crucially — the costs rules that apply if you win or lose. The four tracks are: (1) the small claims track (claims up to £10,000 in most cases); (2) the fast track (£10,000–£25,000, straightforward cases); (3) the intermediate track (£25,000–£100,000, introduced October 2023, fixed costs); and (4) the multi-track (above £100,000 or complex cases). CPR Part 26 governs allocation; CPR Parts 27, 28, 28A, and 29 govern each track respectively. Fixed costs apply to the small claims track, fast track (from April 2023), and intermediate track.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Small Claims Track + Fast Track
Pros
- Small claims: very low costs exposure — even if you lose, you pay no more than fixed costs and court fees (no solicitors' costs)
- Fast track: proportionate fixed costs regime from April 2023 provides certainty about costs exposure
- Small claims: free HMCTS mediation service available; informal hearing before District Judge
- Both tracks: faster to trial than multi-track — small claims typically 4–6 months; fast track 6–12 months
Cons
- Small claims: even if you win, you cannot recover legal costs — instructing a solicitor is usually uneconomic
- Fast track: fixed costs cap means successful parties may not recover all actual legal costs incurred
- Small claims: expert evidence tightly controlled (maximum one report at £750); limited disclosure
- Both tracks: unsuitable for complex or high-value disputes — parties with significant sums at stake need more procedural tools
Best For
Straightforward, lower-value disputes: consumer claims, landlord-tenant deposit disputes, property damage, simple contractual debts. Small claims for DIY litigants; fast track for represented parties with moderate-value claims.
Intermediate Track + Multi-Track
Pros
- Intermediate track: fixed costs provide certainty for mid-range claims (£25,000–£100,000) without the burden of full costs management
- Multi-track: full costs recovery if successful (subject to costs assessment and budgeting) — appropriate for high-value or complex claims
- Multi-track: full case management powers — CMCs, disclosure orders, multiple experts, extensive witness evidence
- Both tracks: appropriate procedural framework for complex legal and factual disputes
Cons
- Multi-track: very expensive — Costs Management Orders (Precedent H budgets) required in most cases; adverse costs risk is high
- Multi-track: slow — trials rarely listed within 18 months of issue in complex cases
- Intermediate track: fixed costs may not cover actual costs for harder cases within the value band
- Both tracks: disproportionate for straightforward, lower-value claims — parties should not be allocated up without good reason
Best For
Intermediate track: defended claims of £25,000–£100,000 expected to resolve within a 3-day trial, such as personal injury, professional negligence, or contract disputes. Multi-track: complex litigation, group actions, high-value claims, cases requiring multiple experts.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
Track allocation drives the economics of civil litigation. If your claim falls near a threshold, the financial value alone does not determine allocation — complexity, time estimate, and the amount of expert evidence also matter (CPR r.26.8). If your claim is under £10,000 and you are acting in person, the small claims track is excellent — costs exposure is minimal. If you have a fast track claim and are legally represented, budget carefully against the fixed costs caps. For intermediate and multi-track cases, obtain early costs budget advice — adverse costs can easily exceed the claim value in complex litigation.