Recent CPRC Insights: Practical Answers to Key Costs Questions
Introduction
I have been on my travels recently and had the opportunity to ask “the powers that be” a series of costs/practice related questions in open forums. Here are their responses which I have paraphrased save for number 2…
Question 1
Does the 1% (or £1000) cap at CPR 3.15(5)(a) for “initially completing Precedent H” encompass only the first version of the budget served & filed ahead of the 1st CCMC? Or does it include any & all revisions/amendments made to the budget in the run up to the 1st CCMC where a Costs Management Order is made?
CPRC Response at the Open Meeting on 8th May 2026
Having spoken to a costs judge and one of the judges involved in formulating the rule, their understanding is the 1% (or £1000) cap covers everything involved in preparing the version of the budget placed before the court at the 1st CCMC. However, there is no authority on this distinct point and applying a literal interpretation to the rule could result in a different understanding/application. The matter will be put before the committee to consider, if so advised, whether an amendment to the rule is needed to clarify what is meant by “initially completing Precedent H”.
Comment
It is not uncommon, especially in high value claims, for the “initial” budget served & filed ahead of the 1st CCMC to be revised and amended as the parties engage in the process of agreeing draft directions and timetabling the claim through to either a 2nd CCMC or trial/split trial. It is also becoming increasingly common for the court to deal with directions & timetable at the 1st CCMC but adjourn costs management until a date in the future. This again requires the Precedent H to be updated/revised ahead of securing an approved budget. Until clarification is received as to the exact meaning of “initially completing Precedent H”, it remains arguable this phrase should be given a literal interpretation to mean only the very first version of the budget that is prepared and served/filed in the run up to the 1st CCMC is captured by the 1% (or £1000) cap, and the costs of dealing with any subsequent revisions/amendments to that budget fall instead within the 2% cap at CPR 3.15(5)(b). In any event, practitioners should be alive to the exceptionality provision within CPR 3.15(5) for the court to allow more than the 1% and 2% caps. This is something that was considered by the court in Sir Cliff Richard OBE v BBC & anor [2017] EWHC Civ 1666 (Ch) which is well worth as read.
Question 2
The £1500 (plus vat) cap for Provisional Assessment under CPR 47.15(5) has remained static since inception. Does the (CPRC) committee/sub-committee intend to review/increase the limit? Could this be done as part of the exercise to adjust Guideline Rates year on year?
CPR Written Response dated 19th May 2026
“Before the CPRC can look at this, MoJ Costs Policy would need to review it, and they have confirmed that the Government is not currently considering it.”
Comment
It seems bizarre that most of the Fixed Recoverable Costs in Part 45 and Guideline Hourly Rates are now regularly uprated for inflation, but other fixed sums in the CPR are seemingly ignored despite being significantly out of date and arguably unfair/unjust. For those involved in Provisional Assessments where a cap of £1500 plus vat operates, when the rule first came in that sum would have covered around 13.5 hours work at the Grade D Guideline Rate of £111ph for a National 2 practitioner. That same practitioner in 2026 must now shoehorn the work into circa 10.5 hours at the prevailing Grade D Guideline Rate of £142ph.
Have Provisional Assessments really become 23% less onerous on the parties since the process was incepted…
Question 3
When might be the best time to ask the court to direct under CPR 47.15(6) that a matter is no longer suitable for a provisional assessment and instead should proceed under rule CPR 47.14 without modification (i.e. detailed assessment)?
View expressed by judicial panel at the ACL Manchester Conference on 15th May 2026
Probably once Points of Dispute and Replies have been served/exchanged. That way the court will understand the essence and substance of the dispute(s) that might otherwise make the provisional assessment process no longer suitable.
Comment
One criticism of the £1500 cap at CPR 47.15(5) is that such a modest sum encourages a “have a go” culture by paying parties because their exposure to adverse costs is limited if they are unsuccessful in pushing a bill to provisional assessment. Conversely, the cap of £1500 could be said to encourage receiving parties to reject otherwise sensible offers and push ahead regardless because they normally only need to recover £1 more than the paying party’s offer to be awarded costs of assessment – so the chance is worth taking.
To the extent that the £1500 cap was meant to dissuade parties from pressing ahead to provisional assessment because it limited their benefit or exposure, I can’t say with any confidence that aim has been achieved. Nevertheless, I have seen an increase over the last few years of cases that, although captured in principle by the provisional assessment regime, appear unsuitable to remain in that process. These typically involve allegations of misconduct, unreasonable exit/exclusion of a claim from a Pre-Action Protocol, exaggeration, or some other feature that will likely require witness evidence & production of contemporaneous documentation by one or more of the parties to deal with the substance of the objection(s) being raised. It is these types of cases that prompted my question as there appears to be a lack of any reported decisions surrounding when, whether and in what circumstances the court will invoke CPR 47.15(6). As fixed costs continue to expand vertically and horizontally, perhaps this becomes less of an issue. But with there being no apparent intention to reexamine the £1500 cap under CPR 47.15(5) (see Question 2 above) and the number of hours work encompassed within that sum becoming less and less, perhaps CPR 47.15(5) might be become more of a battleground in the future where something more than the usual “it’s too much” argument needs resolving by the court in a provisional assessment case.
Question 4
Where an Anonymity Order is made in the substantive proceedings, is there an expectation by the Court that bundles lodged for costs hearings should be redacted to remove any information that could lead to identification of the individuals governed by the terms of the Anonymity Order?
View expressed by judicial panel at the ACL Manchester Conference on 15th May 2026
This would be a question to ask of the court/judge on a case-by-case basis ahead of the relevant hearing. There is a general expectation that certain documents central to the costs process (e.g. bill, Points of Dispute, Replies, Skeleton Arguments etc.) are to be redacted in accordance with the terms of the Anonymity Order. However, it is recognised that to require the substantive file to be fully redacted before being filed with the court would be a mammoth task. Such papers normally retain their privileged status and are not generally available for inspection by the other party(s) or a third party without a specific process having been invoked and the court giving directions or making a distinct order. Common sense must prevail. But ultimately it remains a matter for the court/judge to give specific directions on a case-by-case basis.
Comment
It must be pleasing for those regularly appearing on behalf of receiving parties to hear a common sense and pragmatic response (albeit an informal one rather than anything authoritative). If would be wholly disproportionate if the starting point or expectation was for every document in a bundle placed before the court to be checked & redacted (where appropriate) to remove sensitive information that only the judge and producing party will have sight of in the first instance.
Being proactive and contacting the court to ascertain the judge’s views ahead of time is sound advice. It does mean however, that work on bundles cannot reasonably be left until the last minute. Bundling typically starts weeks and sometimes months ahead of time to ensure compliance with deadlines & orders. My own experience is judges are pragmatic and happy to confirm in an email ahead of time (via their clerk) that a forensic redaction exercise of the underlying file of papers is not required.