CPR Part 47 governs the detailed assessment of costs in English and Welsh civil litigation. It is a procedural framework with specific, non-negotiable timelines — serving the bill of costs, filing the notice of commencement, responding to points of dispute — and the consequences of missing them range from cost sanctions to losing the right to assessment entirely. Most costs lawyers tracking these deadlines in spreadsheets already know the problem. This piece covers what software should do differently, and what a purpose-built solution looks like.
What Is CPR Part 47?
CPR Part 47 sets out the procedure for detailed assessment of costs in civil proceedings in England and Wales. When a costs order has been made and the parties cannot agree on the amount, the receiving party commences detailed assessment proceedings by serving a bill of costs. Part 47 governs the timing of this service, the process for filing the notice of commencement with the court, the period for the paying party to serve points of dispute, the procedure for requesting a hearing, and the court's powers at the assessment itself. Each stage has a defined timeline — some fixed, some running from specific trigger events — creating a web of interdependent deadlines that must be managed across multiple matters simultaneously.
What Is the Significance of CPR Part 36 in Costs Matters?
CPR Part 36 governs offers to settle. In costs proceedings, Part 36 offers create significant strategic implications: a costs judge is required to consider a Part 36 offer made by either party when assessing costs, and the timing of those offers relative to the assessment determines the consequences for the paying and receiving parties respectively. Managing Part 36 timelines alongside Part 47 procedural deadlines requires a system that tracks both simultaneously and alerts fee earners to the strategic inflection points in each matter.
What Are the Operational Challenges of CPR 47 Compliance?
- •Multiple interdependent deadlines per matter — each stage of the detailed assessment process triggers the next, creating chains of dates that must be calculated and tracked.
- •High matter volume — costs professionals typically manage dozens of active matters simultaneously, each at a different procedural stage.
- •Variable trigger events — some deadlines run from service, some from filing, some from court orders. Correctly identifying the trigger requires careful matter-by-matter attention.
- •Part 36 offer monitoring — tracking the timing and terms of all Part 36 offers across a matter portfolio requires a separate but integrated tracking layer.
- •Document management — bills of costs, points of dispute, replies, and supporting documents must be stored in a structured way that allows rapid retrieval for hearings.
Why Do Law Firms Still Track CPR Matters in Spreadsheets?
The honest answer is that until recently, no purpose-built alternative existed at a price point accessible to small and mid-size costs practices. General practice management software is built around billable hours and client files — not around the specific procedural architecture of CPR Part 47. The result is that costs teams either use generic legal practice management tools that do not understand CPR deadlines, or they maintain parallel spreadsheet systems that require constant manual updating and offer no automated alerting.
What Should CPR Part 47 Compliance Software Do?
- •Matter lifecycle engine — model the CPR Part 47 procedural stages explicitly, with automatic deadline calculation from trigger events.
- •Configurable automated alerts — advance warnings at defined intervals before each deadline, sent to the responsible fee earner and supervisor.
- •Part 36 offer tracking — a separate but integrated module for monitoring offer timelines and their strategic implications.
- •Role-based dashboards — partners see portfolio-level status; supervisors see team workload; fee earners see their own matter deadlines.
- •Structured document management — CPR-specific document categories linked to each matter, with client portal access for relevant documents.
- •Audit trail — a complete, tamper-evident log of every deadline, alert, and user action for professional conduct and regulatory purposes.
- •Multi-tenant architecture — where a platform serves multiple firms, each firm's data must be completely isolated at the database level.
How Does Multi-Tenant Architecture Protect Client Data?
In a multi-tenant legal SaaS platform, multiple law firms share the same software infrastructure. The critical security requirement is that each firm's data is completely isolated — a user at firm A must have no possible path to data belonging to firm B, even through application bugs or misconfiguration. Averon implements isolation at the database level using row-level security policies enforced by the database itself, not just by application logic. This means the isolation holds even if the application layer is compromised.
Averon Legal Systems is currently accepting beta partners from UK costs practices. If your team manages CPR Part 47 matters and you are interested in a purpose-built compliance platform, get in touch with Two Bit Digital.
Get In Touch →