0370 270 6000

Search

Search Mobile

collapse

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

Email address

Password

Sign in with LinkedIn

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Register with LinkedIn

Forgotten your password?

collapseSign

Browne Jacobson home

Insurance home

Insights

Blogs

The death of Pre-Action Disclosure Applications (PADs)…?

The death of pre-action disclosure applications (PADs)…?

3 February 2017

…well, maybe not - but certainly as a costs building exercise.

In the case of Sharp v Leeds City Council (2017)

, the Court of Appeal found pre-action disclosure applications (PADs) were not exempt from the Employment Liability / Public Liability (EL/PL) pre-action protocol fixed costs scheme (i.e. the portal). In this instance, the claimant’s costs were reduced from £1,250 to £305.

This case makes for interesting reading for those faced with PADs. While there may be exceptions in the future to limit costs to within the fast track fixed costs scheme, at this stage to allow PAD’s to be subject to assessable costs would “give rise to an undesirable form of satellite litigation”.

We have long used our ‘PAD product’ to argue for ‘no order for costs’ where a PAD has been issued. That still applies, but now as a fall-back, this case should (for the time being) ensure the claimant’s costs are at the most limited to those costs in the portal.

Related opinions

Employers liability for practical jokes in the workplace

The extent of vicarious liability has been tested by the courts again and this time in relation to employees engaging in horseplay and practical jokes.

Landlord and tenant inspections - getting the evidence right

In Rogerson v Bolsover District Council (2019) the Court of Appeal found against a local authority landlord pursuant to the Defective Premises Act 1972 following a finding of an inadequate inspection regime.

Applying QOCS protection in a claim for personal injury and something else

In The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018], the High Court ruled that a Circuit Judge was wrong to automatically apply QOCS protection to a claim for misuse of data which also included a claim for personal injury.

Organisations owe no duty to staff when responding to claims

In Bowen v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Supreme Court have confirmed that members of the workforce aggrieved by the way in which such claims are defended or settled are not entitled to pursue a claim against their employers on this basis.

View all blogs

Jonathan Cook

Senior Associate

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up

Quick links