CPR updates

CPR updates

This sub-topic provides a summary—with links through to more detailed analysis—of updates to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Practice Directions (PD).

For information on approved minutes of meetings of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC), see: Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview.

CPR changes and 193rd practice direction update—6 April 2026

Changes are provided for in the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/97 which largely come into force on 6 April 2026 (with some exceptions). The changes include a new definition of ‘Online Procedure Rules’, amendments to interim serious crime prevention orders under CPR 77, amendments to the closed material procedure under CPR 82, the addition of a new disclosure provision (CPR 31.12A) and other tidying up amendments.

The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have approved the 193rd PD update to the CPR. The 193rd update contains a suite of amendments made in support of The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/97 (the SI). The majority of the amendments come into force on 6 April 2026 but others come into force dependent on the in force dates for

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Court of Appeal rules on claims of non-payment for cargoes of crude oil

Commercial analysis: These were claims for non-payment for cargoes of crude oil. The Commercial Court held that an agreement between the parties to settle their differences and resolve the seller’s claims did not settle all the outstanding claims and that the claims that had not been settled were time-barred. The Court of Appeal has disagreed with the Commercial Court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement and held that it did in fact settle all the seller’s claims. As a result, the limitation defence did not apply. Written by Claire Messer, partner and Reem Shour, PSL at Hill Dickinson LLP.

Challenging the court’s power to make orders having impact outside the claim in which made—R (RA and AA) v Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Dispute Resolution/Public Law analysis: The Court of Appeal’s judgment involves an issue that some critical observers would term a manifestation of ‘judicial overreach’. It concerns the court’s ability to make orders affecting claims that are either not immediately before the court or which have not yet been commenced. It also includes a successful challenge to an order directing government ministers to amend or to update policy statements that they have published. These issues arose in the context of CLOSED material proceedings (now resolved) affecting the operation of two resettlement schemes for categories of individuals requiring to be moved out of Afghanistan to live in the United Kingdom on safety grounds. The second of the schemes arose as a result of a previously not revealed, but now-publicised, data breach about those individuals within the first scheme, potentially threatening their safety. The Court of Appeal’s judgment is an OPEN document although some previously CLOSED judgments are referred to in it.

First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) powers to recommend leave under section 72(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 WM v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust

Local Government analysis: The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) (FTT) reviews the cases of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983). This judgment provides a helpful precedent for practitioners seeking to rely on the full scope of the tribunal’s powers when considering statutory recommendations for leave. The Upper Tribunal (UT) confirmed that the FTT is entitled to recommend that a patient be granted unescorted leave under MeHA 1983, s 72(3) where such a recommendation would assist in facilitating discharge. Crucially this power is not limited by the fact that a responsible clinician has already granted leave under MeHA 1983, s 17 which authorises temporary absence from hospital. Written by Clive Adams, partner and Zack Plunkett, graduate solicitor apprentice at Birketts LLP.

‘Subject to contract’—means exactly that! (Baltimore Wharf v Ballymore Properties)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) dismissed applications for summary judgment, holding that once negotiations include a ‘subject to contract’ reservation, that conditionality remains unless all parties expressly agree it has been removed or such agreement is necessarily implied. The court made clear that acceptance of terms in a ‘subject to contract’ agreement cannot in itself lead to a binding agreement. The underlying dispute concerned the collapse of a nursery roof at Baltimore Wharf, with damages estimated at over £2m. Settlement negotiations marked ‘subject to contract’ culminated in the claimant's solicitor confirming on 24 September 2024 that ‘the Settlement Agreement with WSP's amends is agreed’. However, the agreed settlement agreement remained marked ‘Subject to contract and without prejudice save as to costs’, with nothing in the email exchange demonstrating abandonment of this clear conditionality. The court found no evidence of necessary implication that the subject to contract reservation had been removed, noting that subsequent conduct of the parties, including agreements to stay proceedings was inconsistent with parties believing a binding settlement existed.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News