Personal injury protocols

Pre-action protocols

There are a number of pre-action protocols relating to specific types of personal injury claims which set out the conduct expected of the parties and the steps the court would normally expect parties to take before commencing proceedings. You should follow the protocol that most closely relates to the subject matter of the dispute. If there is no protocol for the type of dispute you are dealing with, you should refer to the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (the Practice Direction).

The limitation period is not suspended while parties comply with a pre-action protocol or the Practice Direction. If the limitation period is about to expire, protective proceedings should be issued and either party should then apply to stay the action in order to allow time for compliance with the relevant pre-action protocol or the Practice Direction.

For more detail, see Practice Note: The pre-action protocols and when they apply.

Non-compliance with pre-action provisions

Failure to comply with any of the specific pre-action protocols or the Practice Direction could result in the court applying sanctions, including as to costs, once a claim has been

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

CJC concludes comprehensive review of pre-action protocols with publication of final report (phase two)

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has concluded its extensive review of pre-action protocols (PAPs) with the publication of its phase two report. The first phase of the final report, published in August 2023, examined the role of PAPs in the civil justice system and explored the potential for digitalising pre-action processes. The second phase was published in November 2024. In the second (and final) phase report the CJC has set out its recommendations for the reform of various existing PAPs, including those for Personal Injury, Housing, Judicial Review, Debt, Construction and Engineering, Professional Negligence and Media and Communications. The report also recommends the creation of two new PAPs, one for dealing with child abuse and one for Multi-Track Claims in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (with a draft included at Appendix 1).

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a report on the final part of the Civil Justice Council's review of the personal injury and clinical negligence pre-action protocols and includes recommendations for reform such as a separate protocol for child abuse claims. We also include our usual roundup of news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

MoJ publishes annual report and accounts for 2023-2024

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has released its annual report and accounts for the financial year 2023-2024 on 14 November 2024. This comprehensive document outlines the department's activities, performance against strategic objectives, governance structures and resource utilisation for the year ending 31 March 2024. Prepared in accordance with HM Treasury's Government Financial Reporting Manual, the report consolidates results from the core department, executive agencies and relevant arm's length bodies.

Misrepresentation, implied terms and settlement agreements (Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd centred on the interpretation and alleged breach of a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in relation to a previous set of proceedings. In this judgment, which serves as a helpful reference for practitioners on several legal issues, the High Court considered whether misrepresentations contained in a party’s pleadings may be actionable, as well as the circumstances in which representations, either express or implied, made during the course of a mediation could form the basis of a claim in misrepresentation, in the absence of a finding of unambiguous impropriety. The court also considered the test for implication of terms into the settlement agreement, and the law applicable to the construction of express contractual terms, ultimately finding the defendant to be liable for breach of an express and/or implied term of the settlement agreement, and in misrepresentation for statements made during the course of the mediation which led to the conclusion thereof. Written by Emily Lodge, associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News