Attersley v UK Insurance Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 217 is a Court of Appeal decision confirming that allocating a claim to the multi-track does not automatically remove it from the fixed recoverable costs regime for every purpose, where a Part 36 offer was made and its relevant period expired, before allocation took place. 

Background to the Case 

The claimant was injured in a road traffic accident in March 2018. Her claim began under the RTA protocol, then exited when the defendant disputed liability, before proceeding under CPR Part 7 with a claimed value of up to £150,000. In March 2021, the defendant admitted liability and made a Part 36 offer of £45,000. The case was allocated to the multi-track in January 2022. The claimant did not accept the offer until roughly sixteen months after the relevant period for acceptance had expired, at which point the case had already been on the multi-track for some time. 

The High Court had held that once the claim was allocated to the multi-track, it fell outside the fixed costs regime entirely, relying on the earlier authority of Qader v Esure Services Ltd. 

The Court of Appeal’s Reasoning 

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that the relevant fixed costs provisions did not require a case to be treated, for all purposes, as if it had never fallen within the fixed costs regime simply because it was later allocated to the multi-track. The court considered it would be surprising if a claimant could become entitled to substantially greater costs by accepting an offer late, as a result of events occurring after the relevant period expired and outside the parties’ control, given that Part 36 is designed in part to place the costs risk of delayed acceptance onto the claimant. The court described this as the more rational and coherent reading of the rules, consistent with adopting a workable, straightforward interpretation of Part 36. 

A Note of Caution 

This decision applies the pre-October 2023 versions of the relevant Part 36 and Part 45 provisions. Both have since been amended as part of the wider extension of fixed recoverable costs, so the precise rule references will not map directly onto claims issued after that date. The underlying principle, that late acceptance of a Part 36 offer should not itself upgrade a claimant to a more generous costs regime, is likely to remain relevant, but the specific mechanics will need to be checked against the current rules for any claim falling under the post-2023 regime. 

What This Means for Practitioners 

For costs lawyers and costs draftsmen, Attersley reinforces that the timing of Part 36 acceptance, relative to the relevant period, can be decisive to costs recovery even after a case has moved tracks. Where a Part 36 offer is accepted late, it is worth checking carefully which costs regime applied at the point the relevant period expired, rather than assuming a later change of track resets the costs position. 

Speak to Greener Costs Today 

If you need advice on how Part 36 and fixed recoverable costs interact following a change in track allocation, contact Greener Costs’ costs lawyers and costs draftsmen on 01204 263047 or info@greenercosts.co.uk. 

FAQs 

Does allocating a case to the multi-track remove it from fixed recoverable costs? Not automatically. Attersley confirms there is no blanket rule that multi-track allocation retrospectively disapplies fixed costs for all purposes, particularly where a Part 36 offer’s relevant period expired before allocation. 

Does this case apply to claims issued after October 2023? The decision itself applies the pre-October 2023 versions of the relevant rules. The underlying principle may still be persuasive, but the specific provisions have since changed, so the current rules need to be checked separately.