header-logo header-logo

Pre-action Protocol Number 13: unlucky for some?

22 February 2018 / Peter Thompson KC
Issue: 7782 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7782_thompson_0

The latest pre-action protocol for debt claims creates extra hoops for creditors to navigate, says Peter Thompson QC

Pre-action Protocol No 13, in force since 1 October 2017, provides extra hoops through which financial institutions and other creditors are expected to jump before having recourse to the courts. The broad aim is to deter creditors from using the courts for debt recovery. Since April 2015, Protocol No 1 has covered the same ground less prescriptively: it laid down that ‘litigation should be a last resort’ and a creditor should be expected, before issuing proceedings, to allow the debtor 14 days to respond to a detailed statement of the claim, a summary of the facts and the disclosure of relevant documents. Protocol 13 goes further and requires, in addition, the delivery of 10 pages of documents including an information sheet, a response form and a statement of income and expenditure and allowing 30 days for the debtor to respond. This must be the biggest turn-off for creditors since the Grayling

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll