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 in court fees.

What is the reason for it?

The

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll