Home / Dispute Resolution / Pre-action and limitation / Pre-action protocols

Legal News

Second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes comes into force

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published on: 08 November 2016
Published by a LexisNexis Dispute Resolution expert

Table of contents

  • Original news
  • Headline points

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes came into force on Monday 9 November 2016.

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Related documents:

3 Checklists
View More
4 News
View More
5 Q&As
View More
Powered by Lexis+®

Related documents:

3 Checklists
View More
4 News
View More
5 Q&As
View More

Popular documents

Limitation—professional negligence claims

Limitation—professional negligence claimsThis Practice Note looks at the limitation period for professional negligence (prof neg) claims and explains how to determine the date of accrual in respect of claims in both contract and in tort.For more background information on limitation, see:

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims? If a letter of claim was sent a year ago, is an updated letter of claim required, or can the claim be issued?We have assumed that It is assumed

Non-compliance with pre-action provisions

Non-compliance with pre-action provisionsThis Practice Note considers when non-compliance with a pre-action protocol or the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols may result in a party being sanctioned and what those sanctions might be.For more general guidance on the extent to which

Limitation—fraud, deliberate concealment and mistake

Limitation—fraud, deliberate concealment and mistakeThis Practice Note considers section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). In particular, it addresses how a court might apply this provision when considering the postponement of limitation periods in claims involving a fraud, deliberate