The Pre Action protocol has been formulated to apply to the majority of personal injury claims. Fiurther to this, the pre action protocol also covers the additional claims consisten with personal injury, such as property or vehicle damage.
The aim of use for the pre action protocol is predominantly for incidents involving accidents at work, slipping, tripping etc, all with the added element of personal injury in the end result. The pre action protocol is to increase the spped at which cases are heard as, under this legislation, a case must be ready for trial within thirty weeks after it has been allocated. This is due to the need for proportionate costs to the value of the work and dispute at hand. The flexibility on offer from this fast track option is in the necessary timescale of the protocol. For high valur claims, the notion of a less timescale-orientated approach may be necessary.
The court will look to the pre-action behaviour of the parties in each and every case, separate from any relevant or applicable protocol to the claim. In reference to personal injury cases with a value of more than the accepted fast track limit, each party is expected to adhere to the protocol as much as is reasonably possible in relation to conduct and the exchange of necessary information.
As regards the amount of time permitted for the disclosure and receipt of expert opnion and evidence as it relates to the case, the timetable may be extended to meet the individual needs of that particualr case. the result of this is that the Pre Action Protocol does not restrict the durability and versatility of the case and that an enforced timetable does not restrict the progress of the the personal injury claim.
If each party does not consider the Pre Action Protocol to be relevant to the particular case, the court proceedings would be issued without the protocol, however the court would require a detailed explanation as to why, exactly, the Pre Action Protocol was not follwed by either party. This would also apply if the Pre Action Protocol was only varied – the court would request an explanation as to why the protocol had been varied, and not followed as it is in place.
