UK: Paying The Price Of Failing To Comply With The Pre Action Protocol

Last Updated: 10 May 2007
Article by Jeremy Glover

In our article dated 15 March 2007, headed "Are You Ready for the New Construction Pre-Action Protocol?" we set out the recent changes to the Pre Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering disputes and highlighted why it was important that the protocol was complied with. The recent case of Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Peter Dann Ltd, [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC), which came before Mr Justice Ramsey confirms that importance.

The case concerned a development project in London. During the course of the piling, there were a number of incidents. In August 2000 and February 2001, CCD wrote to Stent about these, but thereafter Stent received nothing further from CCD making any formal claim or anything else until March 2003 when CCD informed Stent that they were investigating claims against Stent and others. CCD asked Stent to provide information and documentation in connection with that investigation. There was some correspondence between those advising Stent and CCD, but this ceased in about September 2004.

Then some 20 months later in June 2006, CCD served a formal claim on Stent. The claim form had been issued in February 2006. No attempts had been made to conduct any pre-action protocol procedure before the issue or service of the proceedings. CCD accepted this and indeed apologised to the court for that conduct. In early 2007, Stent made an application to the court seeking an order that:

  1. CCD shall pay Stent’s costs of the claim to the 13 April, 2007, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  2. CCD shall, in any event, bear its own costs of the claim against the first defendant to the 13 April, 2007.

Stent, referring to CCD’s failure to comply with the pre-action protocol, relied on paragraph 2.3 of the Protocol Practice Direction which provides that:

"If, in the opinion of the court, non-compliance has led to the commencement of proceedings which might otherwise not have been needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred, the orders the court may make include: (1) An order that the party at fault pay the cost of the proceedings, or part of those costs, of the other party or parties."

CCD’s Defence

CCD said two things by way of defence:

  1. This was a case where there were potential limitation difficulties. In those circumstances, CCD said that their failure was a failure to seek directions under paragraph 6 of the TCC pre-action protocol;
  2. The question of costs should not be determined now, but at the end of the action, or after settlement, when the position on costs would be clearer, and the court would have more information on which to base its decision.

The Judge noted that CCC had not taken any steps to implement the TCC pre-action protocol nor to alert Stent to the contents of the claim or the fact that proceedings were imminent. Indeed he questioned whether there was an immediate limitation problem. Rather, in the period from 14 February 2006 to 8 June 2006, when these proceedings were finally served on Stent without advance notice, CCD spent much time and cost in preparing the particulars of claim for service in the proceedings, ignoring the pre-action obligations.

What was the effect of the breach of the pre-action protocol?

A key objective of the pre-action protocol is to enable parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of a claim before the commencement of proceedings. Judge Ramsey said that:

"in this case, as in many similar cases, experience has shown that it is likely that the pre-action protocol would have led to a settlement without a need for court proceedings."

Stent had included evidence from an in-house solicitor which made the same point:

"It is Stent's policy to avoid litigation wherever possible. Had we received a proper letter of claim, we would have responded in detail to the technical matters, using our in-house technical team. I would have provided any legal input which might have been required…. Stent has not had many claims made against it in the past, but such experience as it has leads it to believe that most, if not all, disputes can and should be resolved without the need for legal proceedings. In the last six years, we have had a number of contractual disputes, which we have dealt with via our commercial team. In this case, we were deprived of the ability to resolve this dispute at an early stage, because CCD failed to comply with the pre-action protocol. My experience of acting on behalf of Stent enables me to say that, if CCD had complied with the pre-action protocol, and Stent had had the opportunity to consider CCD's complaint in detail, then I think there is a good chance that this matter would have settled pre-action."

Therefore the Judge proceeded on the basis that the likelihood was that the matter would have been resolved without recourse to court proceedings, had the protocol been observed.

Timing of an order for costs

CCD said that no order should be made at this stage because the decision as to the consequences of the failure to comply with the pre-action protocol would be easier to make at a later stage when, for instance, the court knew the outcome of a mediation which was due to take place in May 2007. CCD also submitted that Stent's application sought to gain a tactical advantage in relation to one issue – the costs up to the date of the mediation – whereas that could be dealt with in the context of the mediation.

Stent submitted that non-compliance with the protocol had been established and the court was in as good a position now as it will be in the future to decide on the question of costs. If the mediation were to fail, then the court would not know why it had failed, because such matters would be, and remain, confidential. Stent also suggested that the mediation was more likely to fail if the question of those costs was not resolved now.

The Judge agreed the failure to comply with the pre-action protocol meant that the parties were entering the mediation with an additional issue: the increased costs that have been incurred in the context of the proceedings, instead of under the pre-action protocol procedure. He thought there were good reasons why that issue should be resolved now rather than later. In particular it would remove an extra or additional issue which would allow the parties to deal with the mediation in a way which more closely mirrored a mediation at the end of a pre-action protocol procedure.

Stent's costs

The costs position as disclosed at the first case management conference showed that as at October 2006, CCD estimated its costs to date as £800,000 including solicitors’ costs and experts. Stent had incurred costs of £90,895 and Peter Dann some £80,000.

In relation to Stent's costs, any order should place them, in no worse a position than Stent would have been in, had the protocol been complied with. The evidence indicated that they would have responded using their in-house technical team initially but that they would have required an element of engineering input from outside experts, and also in relation to delay and quantum issues. The Judge held that Stent were entitled to recover costs to reflect the increased work carried out because of the exchange of information taking place, not in the lower-cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure, but in the higher-cost atmosphere of court proceedings. In relation to solicitors' costs, this should reflect, to some extent, the use of in-house solicitors, rather than external solicitors.

The Judge was conscious that there were now two possible outcomes to the mediation. If there was a settlement, the additional element of the costs expended in that period will have been spent unnecessarily. If there was no settlement, then there will be benefit to Stent in not having to expend certain elements of cost in the proceedings. However, given the Judge’s view that it was likely that proceedings could have been resolved by the pre-action protocol process, he considered that my costs order should also reflect that fact.

In all the circumstances, the Judge decided that Stent should be entitled to recover from CCD 50% of its costs incurred from 9 June 2006 (the date the claim was served) until 13 April 2007.

CCD's costs

In relation to CCD's costs, had the pre-action protocol procedure been followed, then the costs from 14 February 2006 to 13 April 2007 would have been incurred in the lower cost regime of the pre-action protocol, rather than the higher cost regime of High Court proceedings. Such costs will only generally become relevant if, at any stage, a costs order is made in CCD's favour. Because, in principle, in that event, CCD could seek payment of costs of and incidental to the proceedings, which might include the costs of complying with the pre-action protocol, the Judge decided he should only be concerned, again, with the additional cost incurred by dealing with High Court proceedings, rather than the pre-action protocol procedure in the period from 14 February 2006 to the 13 April 2007. In assessing the position, the Judge held in mind:

"(1) My conclusion that these proceedings would have been likely to be resolved had a pre-action protocol procedure been followed.

(2) The fact that the proceedings from 14 February 2006 to 13 April 2007 should have been carried out in the lower-cost atmosphere of the pre-action protocol process.

(3) The fact that if the proceedings are not settled, the proceedings will continue, and if CCD succeeds, it would otherwise be entitled to its costs in the period from 14 February 2006 to 13 April 2007."

The Judge therefore considered that the proper way of dealing with the position on CCD's costs was, like the costs recoverable by Stent, to provide that CCD shall, in any event, bear 50% of its costs of the proceedings from 14 February 2006 to 13 April 2007. That might have been a significant sum, bearing in mind the £800k, CCD said it had incurred by October 2006.

This article is based on an article from a forthcoming issue of the Fenwick Elliott Dispatch, a monthly newsletter which summarises recent key developments relating to contentious and non-contentious construction law issues. To see the current issue please visit

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jeremy Glover
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.