Pre-action: general

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 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.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents