Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

  • APIL Guide to Personal Injury Claims Procedure
Thumb confirmation email image

Have You Heard About PI & Civil Litigation Law Online?

All your PI & Civil Litigation Law resources at your fingertips

Find Out More

APIL Guide to Personal Injury Claims Procedure

FROM £65.00

Provides practical guidance on conducting personal injury cases

APIL Guide to Personal Injury Claims Procedure guides the reader through each step of a standard PI claim providing details of the applicable procedure and focusing on common problems with consideration of the relevant case-law. This new edition has been updated to cover:
  • The new RTA claims process
  • Developments on Part 36 (unravelling the latest complex case-law)
  • The latest cases on disclosure, including the concept of 'proportionality' in connection with privacy, e-documents and surveillance evidence
  • An in-depth look at expert evidence with a review of cases considering when, in personal injury litigation, this is 'reasonably required'
  • Numerous other procedural points including developments on setting judgment aside, service and changes to the CPR
10% discount for APIL Members, to take advantage of this offer please call Customer Services on +44 (0)330 161 1234.
  • The Protocol
  • Issuing Proceedings
  • The Defence
  • Allocation Questionnaires and Case Management
  • Disclosure and Inspection
  • Factual Evidence
  • Expert Evidence
  • Applications for Court Orders
  • Pre-Trial Checklists
  • Trial
  • Settlement
  • Costs
"offers ... practical and straightforward guidance"
Click here for the full review
Phillip Taylor and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers

“...will prove to be a good friend to aspiring personal injury solicitors and a useful vade mecum to the more experienced.

New Law Journal
2.2.4 Sanctions and relief from sanctions

The policy of the CPR is that court orders, and the rules themselves, are to be complied with. Accordingly:
  • sanctions will automatically apply (CPR 3.8); but
  • relief from sanctions can be given (CPR 3.9).
An application will be necessary, by the party in default, to seek relief from sanctions which the court will consider having regard, as ever, to the overriding objective and to the terms of CPR 3.9 (see 8.10.2).

CPR 3.9 was amended in April 2013 and, along with the corresponding amendments to the overriding objective, this seems likely to herald a tougher regime towards the enforcement of sanctions by the courts. Lord Dyson MR had this to say about the future approach to sanctions when he gave the 18th Lecture in the Implementation Programme:

‘The tougher, more robust approach to rule-compliance and relief from sanctions is intended to ensure that justice can be done in the majority of cases. This requires an acknowledgement that the achievement of justice means something different now. Parties can no longer expect indulgence if they fail to comply with their procedural obligations. Those obligations not only serve the purpose of ensuring that they conduct the litigation proportionately in order to ensure their own costs are kept within proportionate bounds. But more importantly they serve the wider public interest of ensuring that other litigants can obtain justice efficiently and proportionately, and that the court enables them to do so.’

Seeking relief from a sanction which already applies should be distinguished from seeking an extension of time before the relevant deadline, imposing the sanction, has been reached. In that situation the court will not be applying the terms of CPR 3.9 but just the overriding objective (though, of course, this also now emphasises the need for the rules, Practice Directions and orders to be complied with).

A number of decisions considering the April 2013 version of CPR 3.9 have confirmed the court will adopt the approach towards relief from sanctions indicated in the Implementation Lectures, in particular the Court of Appeal judgments in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary and Denton v TH White Ltd (see 8.10.2).

The imposition of a sanction, for non-compliance with the rules, should also be distinguished from a procedural error made by a party, even though this error may result in non-compliance with a rule and so, indirectly, a sanction.

If there has been an error of procedure, such as a failure to comply with a Rule or Practice Direction, CPR 3.10 provides that the error does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings unless the Court so orders and, furthermore, the court may make an order to remedy the error.

In Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Chichester District Council the applicant issued a claim form, which fully set out the basis and grounds of the proceedings, in the wrong court. After the relevant time limit had expired the respondent contended the proceedings were defective and could not proceed. However, with a view to achieving the overriding objective, the court applied CPR 3.10 to correct the error on the basis that issuing in the wrong court, and therefore using the wrong claim form, did not make the proceedings a nullity.

The scope of CPR 3.10 was considered again in Steele v Mooney. The Court of Appeal held the phrase ‘error of procedure’ should not be given an artificially restrictive meaning, and could include a drafting error, when considering an application by the claimant seeking an extension of time for service of the particulars of claim and supporting documentation. That application omitted express reference to the claim form as a result of an error when the application was prepared. In these circumstances the subsequent application was to correct that error, under CPR 3.10, rather than an application, now out of time, seeking an extension of time for service of the claim form (which would have brought the terms of CPR 7.6(3) into play). Accordingly, the application was allowed.

In Phillips v Symes (No 3)16 Lord Brown put CPR 3.10 into the context of the earlier rules replaced by the CPR, and how those rules were applied when dealing with errors of procedure, when he said:

‘The court’s procedure at that time was governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court and the rule in point was RSC Ord 2, r 1. For present purposes I can see no material differences between that rule and CPR r 3.10. All three members of the court accepted that RSC Ord 2, r 1 was a most beneficial provision, to be given wide effect.’

The views of Lord Brown, with whom all members of the Judicial Committee agreed, were described as ‘authoritative guidance on the scope of this provision’ by Popplewell J in Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG.

2.2.5 Statements of truth

Part 22 and the accompanying Practice Direction require certain documents to be verified by a statement of truth.

The documents to be verified by a statement of truth include:
  • a statement of case (and any amended statement of case);
  • a response complying with an order under CPR 18.1 to provide further information;

Have a question about this product? Please get in touch by completing the boxes below.

You May Also Like

APIL Personal Injury

APIL Personal Injury

Law, Practice and Precedents

"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure" PI Focus

Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online
APIL Model Letters for Personal Injury Lawyers

APIL Model Letters for Personal Injury Lawyers

A comprehensive collection of letters for use by all claimant PI lawyers

Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online

APIL Guide to Evidence

Offers detailed and practical advice on evidential matters

More Info from £50.00
Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters