Pre-action protocols

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:

•
the overriding objective being amended to include express reference to the need to comply with, and enforce, PAPs
•
the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols being replaced with a new PAP which should be included as a practice

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 Dispute Resolution News

Can a foreign judgment be enforced via the courts of England and Wales even when it is no longer enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction? (Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a recent decision Mr Justice Kerr considered whether a Danish judgment was enforceable in England and Wales, notwithstanding that the limitation period for enforcement had expired, rendering the judgment unenforceable in Denmark. The court held that although the judgment had been validly registered within time, it was unenforceable by reason of the expiry of either the Danish or the English limitation period for enforcement of judgments and it was therefore (ultimately) unenforceable by the courts of England and Wales. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Civil Justice Committee responds to Law Commission's consultation on contempt of court

The Civil Justice Committee (CJC) has responded to the Law Commission's consultation on contempt of court. The response is contained to general comments on how the consultation proposals impact the accessibility, fairness, and efficiency of the civil justice system. It has focused specifically on technology, and legal aid. It does not go into the technical questions relating to the substance and operation of the law. However, the CJC does support the introduction of simplified categories of liability and removing the ‘criminal/civil’ distinction.

Court orders parties to attempt mediation (DKH Retail Ltd v City Football Group Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision considers an application by the claimants for the court to order the parties to mediate their dispute pursuant to the courts’ powers to do so in CPR 1.4(2)(e) and CPR 3.1(2)(o), following the leading Court of Appeal decision of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in which the Court of Appeal determined that courts have the power to order parties to engage in a non-court based dispute resolution process.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—16 January 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s consultation on proposed amendments to CPR 52.13(3) concerning appellant’s notices and the High Court decision in Manchester Property Development Holdings v Kuit Steinart Levy LLP (adjournment of a trial); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News