Pre-action disclosure/Norwich Pharmacal

This Overview sets out considerations for practitioners to consider prior to the commencement of proceedings in seeking the early disclosure of documents either as a pre-action disclosure application or under a Norwich Pharmacal route.

Prospective parties may:

•
be required to give disclosure under the appropriate pre-action protocol—for further guidance, see Practice Note: The pre-action protocols and when they apply
•
wish to apply to the court for an order for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16—see below
•
wish to apply for a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO)—see below

The guidance within this topic also includes the following which may be relevant:

•
Practice Notes:
1. ◦
  Disclosure by a non-party—Rule 31.17—which looks at third party disclosure under CPR 31.17 and 31.18, ie obtaining disclosure of documents from a third party or non-party to the proceedings pre-action or post issue
2. ◦
  Use of confidential information in civil proceedings—which considers confidential information including what it is, who it belongs to and how to protect it
3. ◦
  Dispute resolution—data protection and GDPR considerations—which looks at the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation

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

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

ACSO reports personal injury claims hit record lows following whiplash reforms

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has reported that the government’s Compensation Recovery Unit recorded a further fall in personal injury claims in 2025, with total registrations reaching a record low, based on data obtained through a Freedom of Information request. A total of 413,323 claims were registered, a 12% decrease from 2024 and a fall of more than half compared with 2018. The decline was driven mainly by motor injury claims, which fell by 14% year on year to 282,428 and reached their lowest quarterly level on record in the final quarter of 2025. Claims in other categories, including employer and public liability, also remained well below previous highs. ACSO said the sustained reduction reflects increased barriers to bringing claims, particularly following the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash reforms, and stated that the figures undermine claims of a widespread compensation culture, as higher small claims limits and fixed costs regimes have reduced access to legal representation despite road traffic levels returning close to pre-pandemic norms.

BHP to pay £43m over Mariana Dam case as it seeks appeal

Law360, London: BHP will have to pay £43m of costs on account after it was found liable for the collapse of a Brazilian dam, a London court ruled on 19 January 2026 as it rejected BHP's request to appeal against the decision.

Missing records and an uncommunicated afterthought speak louder than claims of usual practice (Shaheen v Daish)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court determined preliminary issues regarding clinical negligence. The court held that the defendant GP failed to inform the deceased of a requested chest x-ray and that he would have attended for the x-ray had he been properly informed. Additionally, the court found the deceased was not contributorily negligent in failing to attend a follow-up appointment. Practitioners should note the critical importance of contemporaneous record-keeping; the absence of the x-ray request in the consultation notes was a pivotal factor in the court’s decision. The case reinforces that contributory negligence remains difficult to establish in clinical settings. It is unlikely to succeed unless a defendant demonstrates the patient fully understood the clinical significance of failing to follow advice or attend follow-up appointments. This is particularly relevant when investigations are ordered as an 'afterthought' after a patient has left, without full explanation to the patient. Written by Jennifer Dickinson, barrister at Cobden House Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News