Last year, I conducted a poll to gather people’s opinions on how CJ/Records and advocates would dress during intermediate track trial/final hearings. Whilst it was only a few votes, the majority agreed that it would be business attire rather than robed.
I believe this correct as I believe it will be treated more like a fast track, rather than a multi track and this post explains why I this is correct.
Don’t worry, this post isn’t about my April Fool’s linkedin post about a practice direction introducing solicitor/authorised advocate gowns that are coloured depending on the type of advocate
What determines if a hearing is robed.
Many rely on the Bar Council’s guidance for court attire, originally issued in 2009 (but updated in 2020), which suggests the attire for a particular hearing in each Court.
The key point that is usually taken away is that in the County Court, court dress is required for “trials, appeals from trials, and appeals under the Housing Act 1996 sections 204 and 204A“, but the guidance expressly states that fast track trials are business attire. Whilst some Circuit Judges/Recorders may still robe for fast track trials, it is not the norm.
There are unlikely to have been any intermediate track trials yet, but I think there is a way to determine whether advocates must robe or wear business attire.
Will advocates and Judges robe for final hearings in the intermediate track?
It is definitely my view that intermediate track trials will be conducted in business attire (save for where Circuit Judges and Recorders decide to robe). My reasons are as follows.
Practice Direction 2B (Allocation of cases to level of Judiciary) used to say the following:-
11.1 A District Judge has jurisdiction to hear the following:
(a) any claim which has been allocated to the small claims track or fast track or which is treated as being allocated to the multi-track under rule 8.9(c) and the table at Section B of Practice Direction 8A, except claims………..
It also set out the various exemptions, types of hearings and, of course, the caveat that a District Judge can hear “any other proceedings with the direction or permission of the Designated Civil Judge or Supervising Judge or Supervising Judge’s nominee“.
Now Practice Direction 2B para 11.1 now says the following:-
11.1 The following proceedings referred to in paragraph 8.1(a) will normally be allocated to a District Judge—(a) any claim which has been allocated to the small claims track, fast track or intermediate track or which is treated as being allocated to the multi-track under rule 8.9(c), or any claim referred to in the table at Section B of Practice Direction 49E, except claims…
This suggests that the intermediate track is more associated with fast track matters, rather than the multi track. If the intermediate track was to be more associated with the multi track, then it would be something that a District Judge could only hear with direction of permission of the DCJ.
Points to the contrary
Of course, it is very odd that matters that are between £25,000 and £100,000 could be more akin to a fast track trial. Part 26 is clear that the intermediate track can accommodate a trial that takes no more than three days and has oral expert evidence.
These are cases which would have been assigned to the multi-track previously, but are now being assigned to the intermediate track (of course, that does not apply to cases including personal injury where the cause of action is prior to the 1st October 2023). These cases should not be treated any differently. The only difference should be that costs will be awarded on a fixed fee basis, and these cases will mainly be heard by District Level Judges.
The Intermediate track rules have been shoehorned into Part 28, which used to be exclusively for the fast track rules. They are segregated within Part 28, so it is not as if they are intended to be sharing the exact same rules.
Wait and see
It is not as if District Judges have never dealt with multi track trials before. Subject to court delays, settlements and judicial availability, we may start to see how the Judiciary treat intermediate track claims in the later part of the year.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.