CPRC Resolves to Delete CPR 3.16(2) and Refers Attersley to Lacuna Sub-Committee

Costs Budgeting — 2026-04-16

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has resolved to delete CPR 3.16(2), which required costs management conferences to be conducted by telephone or in writing, as unduly restrictive and outdated.

Overview

Date: 6 March 2026

Source: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, The Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice

Key Issues:

Deletion of CPR 3.16(2) (costs management conferences to be conducted by telephone or in writing)
Referral of Attersley v UK Insurance [2026] EWCA Civ 217 to the Lacuna Sub-Committee for consideration of the interplay between Part 36 and fixed recoverable costs

---

CPR 3.16(2): Costs Management Conferences No Longer Required by Telephone or in Writing

At Item 5 of the 6 March meeting, the Lacuna Sub-Committee presented its recommendation on the listing of costs management conferences.

Master Dagnall proposed reform of CPR 3.16 (costs management conferences) on the basis that CPR 3.16(2), which currently provides that costs management conferences "should be conducted by telephone or in writing", is unduly restrictive, outdated, and inconsistent with current judicial practice (paragraph 26).

The Senior Master was consulted and confirmed that he is content with the removal of the provision (paragraph 27).

The Lacuna Sub-Committee further noted that there appears to be little (if any) other reference to "costs management conference" in the CPR, and raised the question of whether CPR 3.16(1) might also be deleted, or whether the expression should be relocated to the definitions section at CPR 2.3(1) (paragraph 28).

The Committee resolved to:

Delete CPR 3.16(2) because it is unduly restrictive, outdated, and inconsistent with current practice. No further consultation is required.
Leave CPR 3.16(1) in situ for the time being, because there is an interaction with the costs budgeting pilot practice directions and a risk of unintended consequences. If it is agreed in principle to delete sub-rule (1), consultation would likely be required (paragraph 29).

The deletion of CPR 3.16(2) will be incorporated into the next mainstream CPR update cycle, as part of the October 2026 common-commencement date (paragraph 30).

---

Attersley v UK Insurance Referred to Lacuna Sub-Committee

At Item 7 (Any Other Business), the Committee noted the Court of Appeal judgment in Attersley v UK Insurance, Neutral Citation Number [2026] EWCA Civ 217. The matter has been referred by Lord Justice Miles as the judgment raises certain questions arising from the interplay of Part 36 and Part 45 in ex-Road Traffic Act Protocol cases, which may require consideration (paragraph 44).

It was resolved to refer the matter to the Lacuna Sub-Committee in the first instance, with District Judge Clarke to consider.

---

Practical Implications

For Costs Lawyers

1. CMCs can now be conducted in any format. The deletion of CPR 3.16(2) removes the presumption that costs management conferences should be by telephone or in writing. Courts will have full discretion to list CMCs in whatever format is most appropriate, including video hearing, in person, or on paper. This reflects what has been happening in practice for some time, particularly since the pandemic normalised video hearings.

2. No immediate change to practice. The deletion takes effect with the October 2026 CPR update. Until then, CPR 3.16(2) technically remains in force, although the Committee's view that it is "inconsistent with current practice" provides a clear indication that courts are already moving away from a telephone-first approach.

3. Watch CPR 3.16(1). The Committee has left open the question of whether the concept of a "costs management conference" should be retained in the rules at all, or whether the definition should simply be absorbed into the general case management provisions. Further changes may follow.

On Part 36 and Fixed Costs

4. The Attersley question is now formally on the CPRC's agenda. The Court of Appeal's decision in Attersley v UK Insurance [2026] EWCA Civ 217 raised questions about whether a claimant who accepts a Part 36 offer late in a case that falls within the fixed recoverable costs regime is entitled to standard basis costs from the date the relevant period expired, or whether fixed costs continue to apply. The referral to the Lacuna Sub-Committee signals that the CPRC may intervene with a rule change to clarify the position, rather than leaving the matter to further judicial development.

5. Practitioners should monitor this closely. If the CPRC recommends an amendment to the rules, it could have significant implications for the costs consequences of Part 36 offers in cases subject to fixed recoverable costs. The outcome will determine whether the fixed costs regime or standard basis costs apply where a Part 36 offer is accepted after the relevant period has expired.

---

Other Notable Items from the March 2026 Meeting

Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence: The CPRC resolved to establish a Standing Committee on AI, with a remit to keep the CPR under review in light of the evolving use of AI in litigation and to explore how AI tools might assist the committee's own work (paragraph 37).

Annual Open Meeting: The CPRC will hold its annual open meeting in Birmingham on 8 May 2026, the first time outside London. The meeting will be in hybrid format (paragraph 46).

---

Source: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, 6 March 2026 (approved). Available at GOV.UK.

Analysis by Mackenzie Costs, costlawyer.co.uk

Related Specialist Support

Costs Budgeting and Detailed Assessment: Precedent H, dispute documents, negotiations and assessment strategy.
Costs Lawyer Support: Direct help with costs procedure, strategy, drafting and advocacy.
Bills of Costs: Clear, defensible traditional and electronic bills prepared for recovery.