header-logo header-logo

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

Pre-action Protocol Number 13: unlucky for some?

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 hike

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll