PI Brief Update

Watson, We Have a Case! MH Site Maintenance Services Limited, Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited v James Watson - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers

21/10/25. On 24 June 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in MH Site Maintenance Services Limited, Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited v James Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775. The lead judgment of Lord Justice Coulson clarifies the extent of the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene and make case management directions in claims progressing under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value RTA Claims (“PAP”) when proceedings have been issued under Part 8 due to limitation.

Background

The claim arose from an RTA on the 16 September 2019 involving the First Defendant. The Second Defendant was the insurer. The claim for personal injury was not expected to exceed £10,000.

The Claimant began the PAP process with a CNF dated 17 July 2020. Liability was admitted by the Second Defendant on 30 July 2020, concluding Stage 1. However, the Claim never progressing to Stage 2 because the Claimant failed to produce a Settlement Pack. The first medical examination did not even take place until 11 January 2023.

To protect against limitation, the Claimant issued via Part 8 on 6 September 2022, in line with para 5.7 of the PAP and para 16 of PD49F. The Claim was stayed on 13 September 2022 with an unless order in default of which the Claim would be struck out. Three months before its expiry, the Defendants sought an order to lift the stay and strike out the claim unless the settlement pack was provided within 21 days, pursuant to CPR r3.1(2)(m) (now CPR r3.1(2)(p)). At first instance, DJ Baldwin declined that order, concluding that he lacked the power, as the court was not "managing the case". This decision was upheld by HHJ Wood KC on appeal, who similarly found that the Court only becomes involved at Stage 3 of the PAP. Laing LJ granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Ruling: Appeal Allowed

Lord Justice Coulson confirmed that ordinarily the PAP process is self-contained and pre-action. As such, it is not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and parties cannot issue freestanding Court proceedings seeking orders to expedite the process. However, the position changes when the claimant expressly invokes the court’s jurisdiction by issuing the Claim. The Part 8 claim becomes "the case" for the purposes of CPR 3.1(2)(p) and the full suite of powers under r3.1(2) become available. The very granting of a stay involves the Court’s indirect control of the PAP process. It cannot therefore be maintained that more direct control (ordering particular steps to be taken) is outside of the Court’s jurisdiction. Indeed, this is expressly envisaged by paras 13-15 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. However, it is only in exceptional cases, where there has been a wholesale failure to take any of the necessary steps under the PAP, that a party may seek directions designed to ensure progress.

Comment

Although the appeal was allowed, the judgment provides a note of caution for practitioners. Resorting to orders directing compliance with the PAP is not to be encouraged and should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Such orders could, however, prove a useful tool in the arsenal of Defendants faced with Claimants sitting on their hands having secured protection from limitation.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/RobertCrum