Pre-action protocols

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Reform proposals

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) published an interim report on the subject of the pre-action protocols (PAPs) in November 2021. The interim report was said to address the role PAPs should play in a modern and increasingly digitalised civil justice system. In particular, it canvassed a number of reform options to the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (setting out 'revised draft text and a proposed joint stocktake template' at Appendix 4) and the existing PAPs, plus the creation of new PAPs in certain areas. However, no recommendations were made at that stage, but rather the interim report was said to have been published for the purposes of allowing the CJC to consult as widely as possible.

Having provoked considerable discussion among the legal profession and other interested parties, the CJC published its final report (part 1) in August 2023. The key recommendations were summarised at para 1.7, and included:

  1. •

    the overriding objective being amended to include express reference to the need to comply with, and enforce, PAPs

  2. •

    the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols being replaced with a new PAP which should be included

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Jurisdictional challenges from abroad and the duty of full and frank disclosure (Okuashvili and others v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco and others)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Okuashvili v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco, the High Court heard a complex jurisdictional challenge in respect of two separate sets of proceedings brought against various individuals and companies located in or with a nexus to Georgia. The judgment, which resulted in the court ultimately declining jurisdiction over almost all of the claims against all but one defendant, provides a helpful summary of the law applicable to the granting of permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and CPR 6.37. It also serves as a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure which arises in the context of without notice applications such as an application for permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction, and of the factors the court will take into consideration when determining whether or not there has been valid service out of the jurisdiction. Written by Emily Lodge, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

UKSC and JCPC publish final year of 2023-2026 business plan

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) have published the final year of their three-year business plan for 2023-2026. The plan focuses on five strategic priorities and reports the successful completion of their Change Programme, which includes the launch of a new digital case management portal and the creation of new websites for the Supreme Court and the JCPC.

Council establishes a compelling need for an injunction against Persons Unknown to prevent trespass and nuisance (The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Snell and others)

Local Government analysis: This case involved the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) and several defendants, including individuals living on boats on the River Lea and separate structures on the embankment owned by the Council. The land in question is part of the Meridian Water Regeneration Project (‘Regeneration Project), a significant development initiative aimed at constructing approximately 10,000 residential homes, commercial premises and infrastructure improvements. The Council sought an injunction to prevent the unauthorised moorings and occupation of its land so as to be able to proceed with the Regeneration Project. In the High Court, Deputy Judge Jason Beer KC granted the final injunction, emphasising the compelling justification for preventing unauthorised moorings that obstructed essential infrastructure works. Written by Clive Adams, partner at Birketts LLP.

‘Half the truth is often a great lie’—Benjamin Franklin (Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd)

Commercial analysis: A case brought to the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s decision on the scope of fiduciary duty, informed consent and dishonesty. The court clarified that agents must fully disclose commissions (including the amount and method of funding) to avoid breaching fiduciary duties. Engie Power could only be liable as an accessory if dishonest and the court found the limitation period began when commission was paid, not when the contract was signed. The appeal was allowed in part. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Limitation—tort claims

Limitation—tort claimsThis Practice Note addresses the issues arising out of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) in relation to tort claims. It looks at limitation periods for actions founded on tort, with particular focus on joint tortfeasors, concurrent duties between contract and tort claims,

Defendant’s response to a letter of claim

Defendant’s response to a letter of claim[ON YOUR FIRM’S LETTERHEAD][Insert name and address of the claimant’s solicitors, including any reference number/name of the responsible lawyer if given in the letter of claim][Insert date][Insert your reference]Dear [insert organisation name][Insert

In what circumstances can you assign a claim or cause of action?

In what circumstances can you assign a claim or cause of action?This Practice Note sets out the requirements and considerations for permitted assignment of claims or causes of action in English civil litigation.For guidance on how to assign a claim or cause of action, with particular consideration

Letter of claim—against a surveyor for breach of contract and, or alternatively, negligence in producing

Letter of claim—against a surveyor for breach of contract and, or alternatively, negligence in producing a valuation[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS]FAO [RELEVANT NAME][NAME OF DEFENDANT SURVEYOR][ADDRESS LINE 1][ADDRESS LINE 2][POSTCODE][DATE]Dear [insert organisation
Limitation—tort claims

Limitation—tort claims

Limitation—tort claimsThis Practice Note addresses the issues arising out of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) in relation to tort claims. It looks at limitation periods for actions founded on tort, with particular focus on joint tortfeasors, concurrent duties between contract and tort claims,

Defendant’s response to a letter of claim

Defendant’s response to a letter of claim

Defendant’s response to a letter of claim[ON YOUR FIRM’S LETTERHEAD][Insert name and address of the claimant’s solicitors, including any reference number/name of the responsible lawyer if given in the letter of claim][Insert date][Insert your reference]Dear [insert organisation name][Insert

In what circumstances can you assign a claim or cause of action?

In what circumstances can you assign a claim or cause of action?

In what circumstances can you assign a claim or cause of action?This Practice Note sets out the requirements and considerations for permitted assignment of claims or causes of action in English civil litigation.For guidance on how to assign a claim or cause of action, with particular consideration

Letter of claim—against a surveyor for breach of contract and, or alternatively, negligence in producing

Letter of claim—against a surveyor for breach of contract and, or alternatively, negligence in producing

Letter of claim—against a surveyor for breach of contract and, or alternatively, negligence in producing a valuation[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS]FAO [RELEVANT NAME][NAME OF DEFENDANT SURVEYOR][ADDRESS LINE 1][ADDRESS LINE 2][POSTCODE][DATE]Dear [insert organisation