header-logo header-logo

23 June 2017
Issue: 7751 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Protocol pleading

Q Is there now a requirement for a claimant to state in their claim form or particulars of claim whether they have complied with any relevant protocol. I often observe this still being done but the requirement for it which was originally in the pre-action conduct PD seems to have disappeared from its current successor and I cannot find it anywhere. I have been criticised for omitting it from statements of case I have drafted.

A The requirement no longer exists although the directions questionnaires in fast and multi-track claims raise the subject. If it is thought that there is a likelihood that the defence will raise non-compliance with a view to seeking a stay or, ultimately, the imposition of a sanction on costs or interest then it could be useful to positively plead compliance in the particulars of claim.

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

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury expands private client and family office platform with Cadwalader partner hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll