A person who wants to consult a lawyer should know that it can take several weeks or months for the steps before the action is completed. Those who consult a lawyer often believe that they will be able to go straight into court proceedings and get a „solution” from the court. This is no longer the case, and a person would be ill-advised to try. The rules of conduct prior to prosecution are as follows: (b) the proceedings are suspended while certain measures are taken to comply with the pre-action protocol or practice instruction; A pre-action protocol describes the specific procedures to be followed before initiating a procedure. The protocols do not change the legal deadlines that apply. The underlying principle is that all parties should try to discuss a solution; A settlement of the dispute is possible in all cases, with the exception of a minority of cases. If one of the parties refuses to act appropriately and the case is brought before the courts, the party who did not attempt to resolve the problem may have to bear the costs of the other party. If there is no named pre-action protocol, the pre-action conduct practice statement should be followed. They need to make sure that everything they do is in line with the overall goal, as discussed in a previous article. The purpose of the pre-action protocols is very clear and includes the following: The pre-action process should begin with the creditor sending a letter of credence to the debtor.

The minutes set out the information that should be included in the letter containing an up-to-date statement of the amount of the debt. It must be clearly dated on the first page and sent to the debtor by mail, unless the debtor has expressly requested another type of communication such as e-mail. 12. If a dispute has not been resolved after the parties have followed a pre-action protocol or practical instruction, they should review their respective positions. They should review the documents and evidence to determine whether it is possible to avoid a proceeding and at least try to narrow down the contentious issues before the applicant initiates proceedings. 1. The minutes of preparation for bringing an action shall explain the conduct and set out the measures which the court would normally expect from the parties before initiating proceedings in respect of certain types of civil actions. They are approved by the Master of the Rolls and are attached to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPR). (The current pre-action protocols are listed in paragraph 18.) However, for reasonable creditors who have generally tried to get in touch with debtors, the new pre-action process is likely to be a source of frustration. The pre-action process will now be longer and longer, and the protocol will give the debtor the opportunity to „play to save time” by using the deadlines set out in the protocol to thwart the process for as long as possible.

5. The costs of complying with a pre-action protocol or practical instruction should be proportionate (CPR 44.3(5)). If the parties incur disproportionate costs in complying with a pre-action protocol or this practice direction, these costs cannot be recovered as part of the procedural costs. The idea that litigation should only be initiated as a last resort is fully supported by the judiciary; The parties and their lawyers have a positive duty to try to settle cases before the trial. In particular, the rules on ex ante measures aim to promote early resolution and, therefore, if respected, to ensure that disputes are only initiated as a last resort. Non-compliance is taken seriously, especially if the courts believe that compliance would have avoided litigation. The range of sanctions is discussed in more detail below. The new protocol applies only in situations where no other pre-action protocol applies.

Here is our summary guide to the changes introduced by the new protocol, although the full protocol can be found here. If the procedure for compliance with the statutory time limit is initiated before the parties have followed the procedures of this practical instruction or the relevant minutes of the action, the parties should ask the court to stay the proceedings provided that they comply with them. The pre-action protocol is the conduct that the court expects from both parties before initiating proceedings, as set out in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPR). A pre-action protocol letter, or PAP, is a legal letter written to the Ministry of the Interior to attempt to resolve a dispute before initiating legal proceedings. It is also sometimes called „letter before the claim” or „letter before action”. The practice direction emphasizes that pre-action conduct should not be used to gain an unfair advantage for a party and that parties should take reasonable and proportionate steps to identify, refine and resolve legal, factual or expert issues.2 Pre-action conduct is not intended as a tactical tool – protocols are flexible and it is more important to: to follow the spirit as the letter. If it is clear that the other party is trying to use the rules to gain a tactical advantage, make sure they are aware of this. The importance of pre-action behaviour can be better summed up by the update of the Protocol`s practical instruction in April 2006: a major change introduced concerns the reduction of the level of detail to be defined by Parties in their correspondence with the Protocol.

The provisions of the first edition on proportionality have been modified by the requirement that the information contained in the letter of complaint must contain a clear summary of the facts on which „each request” was based and the basis on which each request was invoked, indicating the main contractual clauses and the legal provisions invoked, with the response in the defendant`s response to these details had to be received. These requirements have resulted in a high load for e.B. Billing disputes, where the plaintiff`s overall claim is often divided into claims for multiple variations, delay and interruption costs, and an extension of time. Pre-action protocols are simply steps that must be completed before filing a complaint in court. They are written in a comprehensible manner and are intended to ensure that as many issues as possible can be resolved without the need for a hearing. The section of the Protocol entitled „Compliance” also provides that the Court will be able to treat the standards of the Protocol as the normal and reasonable approach to conduct before bringing an action (and „proportionately” has been added to normal and appropriate). However, there has been a significant change in the determination of the circumstances in which non-compliance results in a cost penalty. Previously, it had been stated that the Court would be concerned about widespread compliance, but added the warning that minor deviations from the Protocol would not exempt the „innocent” party from compliance with the Protocol.

It is now envisaged that cost penalties for non-compliance with the Protocol will be the exception and not the norm, for example if there has been .B there has been a „flagrant or very significant disregard” of the Protocol. The rules on ex ante measures recognise that alternative dispute resolution is not appropriate in all cases: the parties cannot be compelled to act as mediators. However, in cases where the Tribunal considers that some form of alternative dispute resolution would have been appropriate, and in particular if one of the parties urges that the matter be resolved in another way through alternative dispute resolution, the courts may impose cost penalties if they find that the party concerned has unreasonably refused to consider alternative dispute resolution. 10 (a) have not provided sufficient information to achieve the objectives set out in paragraph 3; Pre-action protocols often require a letter of claim, which must also include all the information and attach all the documents required by the protocol. For companies with large debt portfolios to recover, they must review their pre-negotiation processes to ensure that they comply with the protocol from October 1, while preventing the process from dragging on excessively. This involves integrating the letter of complaint into their process at an appropriate early stage so that, for protocol reasons, the clock starts working at the right time. Here are some of our key tips for ensuring compliance with pre-action protocols: The reduced level of detail required in protocol correspondence is being revised with respect to the objectives of the protocol. Previously, it was concluded that the plaintiff and defendant in a pre-litigation phase „must have provided sufficient information for each party to know the nature of the other party`s case.” This contrasts with the objectives, which now include „the full exchange of sufficient information on the proposed procedure so that the parties can understand the other party`s position and make informed decisions on settlement and follow-up”.

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPR) contains detailed rules and guidelines for the conduct of parties to the proceedings during the dispute. In addition, there are rules that determine how courts expect parties to commence a lawsuit („pre-action rules”). Failure to comply with these pre-litigation provisions may result in a subsequent sanction by a party. So, if you`re considering filing a lawsuit, or if you know that a counterparty may be considering filing a lawsuit against you, it`s important to know the rules before the lawsuit. One of the clear objectives of the Protocol is to reduce the number of claims on individuals and to provide them with some protection against unscrupulous creditors. In line with this objective, the Protocol requires both parties to consider alternative dispute resolution procedures such as mediation (although the Protocol recognizes that there will be cases where alternative dispute resolution would be appropriate). If the case continues, if the court gives instructions for the management of the case and decides on orders to be made with respect to costs, it will take into account the conduct of a party before the prosecution and compliance with a relevant record of the prosecution. .