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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll