Anthony Gold

Get in touch

020 7940 4060

  • People
  • Insights
  • What to Expect
  • Contact Us
Anthony Gold
  • Services
    • Housing And Property Disputes
      • Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Services For Commercial Landlords, Tenants And Agents
      • Services For Residential Landlords And Agents
      • Housing And Tenancy Issues
      • Judicial Review
    • Injury And Medical Claims
      • Life Changing Injuries
      • Medical Claims
      • Personal Injury
      • Child Abuse
    • Family And Relationships
      • Starting Relationships
      • Ending Relationships
      • After Relationships End
      • Useful Contacts
      • Religious & Cultural Issues
      • Family Law FAQs
      • Family Dispute Resolution
      • Modern Families And Surrogacy Arrangements
    • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
      • Business Agreements
      • Business Disagreements
      • Commercial Property
      • Commercial Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Residential Property
    • Wills, Estates & Court Of Protection
      • Wills, Trusts And Estates
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Capacity And Court Of Protection
    • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
      • Personal Claims
      • Professional Negligence
      • Business Disagreements
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Employment
    • People
    • Insights
    • What to Expect
    • Contact Us
  • Get in touch

    020 7940 4060

  • Housing and Property Disputes
  • Injury and Medical Claims
  • Family and Relationships
  • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
  • Wills, Estates & Court of Protection
  • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
  • Property disputes
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Challenging the decisions of councils and public bodies
  • Rights of way, boundaries, covenants and easements
  • Party wall disputes
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Services for commercial landlords, tenants and agents
  • Breach of covenant
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Lease renewals
  • Services for residential landlords and agents
  • Regulatory issues
  • Repossession
  • Agents (including letting agreements)
  • Housing and tenancy issues
  • Repairs
  • Repossession and eviction
  • Rehousing and homelessness
  • Judicial review
  • Life changing injuries
  • Brain injury
  • Spinal cord injury
  • Amputation
  • Psychiatric injury
  • Fatal injuries and inquests
  • Medical claims
  • Surgical claims
  • Non-Surgical Claims
  • Birth injury
  • Child health and paediatrics
  • GP and primary care treatment
  • Private healthcare
  • Personal injury
  • Road traffic accidents
  • Accidents abroad
  • Accidents at work
  • Faulty products
  • Public liability and other accidents
  • Child abuse
  • Child abuse
  • Starting relationships
  • Pre nuptial agreements
  • Pre civil partnership and same sex relationship agreements
  • Cohabitation and living together agreements
  • Property ownership agreements
  • Ending relationships
  • Divorce and separation
  • Ending a civil partnership
  • Ending cohabitation
  • Agreeing child arrangements
  • Agreeing finance and assets
  • International arrangements
  • After relationships end
  • Abduction and leave to remove children
  • Changing and challenging parenting agreements
  • Changing and challenging financial agreements
  • Grandparents’ rights
  • Useful Contacts
  • Financial planners
  • Referral to Pension Actuaries and Pension on Divorce Experts (PODEs)
  • Tax Specialists
  • Financial Neutrals
  • Counselling
  • Conveyancing
  • Wills
  • Religious & cultural issues
  • Jewish family law
  • Islamic family law
  • Family Law FAQs
  • Children FAQs
  • Cohabitation Agreement FAQs
  • No-Fault Divorce and Separation FAQs
  • Financial Issues FAQs
  • Pre-Marital Contracts FAQs
  • Family Dispute Resolution
  • Roundtable Meetings
  • One Solicitor Solution
  • Mediation
  • Collaborative Practice
  • Arbitration
  • Second Opinions
  • Private FDR’s
  • Early Neutral Evaluation (‘ENE’)
  • Modern Families and Surrogacy Arrangements
  • Domestic Surrogacy
  • International Surrogacy
  • Business agreements
  • Business advice
  • Employment
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Supplier contracts
  • Business disagreements
  • Commercial property
  • Commercial Sale and Purchases
  • Commercial loans and mortgages
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Commercial advice for landlords and tenants
  • Planning advice
  • Mortgage debentures and securities
  • Commercial property disputes
  • Breach of covenant
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Lease renewals
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Residential property
  • Residential Sale and Purchases
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Remortgages
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Ownership matters and transfers
  • Wills, trusts and estates
  • Making a will
  • Applying for probate
  • Distributing the estate
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Trust advice
  • Tax planning and advice
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Appointing a deputy
  • Removing a deputy
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Gifts and legacies
  • Managing assets under a deputyship
  • Care issues
  • Removing lasting and enduring power of attorney
  • Special educational needs
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Personal claims
  • Debt recovery
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Building disputes
  • Professional negligence
  • Professional Negligence
  • Property Fraud
  • Investment Fraud
  • Business disagreements
  • Building disputes
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Claims against directors
  • Contract disputes
  • Debt recovery
  • Directors personal liabilities
  • Employment
  • Professional negligence
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Employment
  • Employment
  • Unfair or Wrongful Dismissal
  • Settlement Agreements
Anthony Gold > Blog > Review of the Clinical Negligence Pre-Action Protocol

Dr Jock Mackenzie

jock.mackenzie@anthonygold.co.uk

Share
  • December 13, 2021
  • Blog
  • By  Dr Jock Mackenzie 
  • 0 comments

Review of the Clinical Negligence Pre-Action Protocol


On 15 November 2021, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) produced an Interim Report entitled “Review of Pre-Action Protocols (PAP)” [1] for consultation on the subject of the PAPs, in which it canvasses a number of options for their reform. The consultation is based on answering questions via a particular form which can be submitted online. [2] The review includes the clinical negligence PAP, known as the PAP for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes (PAP-RCD).

 

There is a helpful history of the PAPs at Appendix 3 of the Report, explaining how they were introduced in 1999 with the Woolf Reforms and that their intention was to “set effective and enforceable standards for the efficient conduct of pre-action litigation” (as per Lord Irvine); ultimately the idea was that they would result in promoting early, satisfactory and low-cost settlement. However, they could not, and did not, form part of the then new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) because the latter only applied to court proceedings. Nevertheless, they were introduced into the CPR indirectly through the Practice Direction (PD-Protocols), with punishment for breaches to be by way of costs sanctions should litigation be necessary. The PAP-RCD came into force on 26 April 1999 and has remained in force ever since with only relatively minor amendment. The PAP regime as a whole has undergone various reviews, recommendations and some amendment at various stages in the last 22 years. There is no doubt, however, that relatively major surgery to some of the PAPs, including the PAP-RDS, is overdue.

 

PAPs have played an important role in disputes and dispute resolution since their introduction. They form an important part of the requirement of disputing parties to recognise and adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) wherever possible. However, as with all PAPs, the PAP-RCD relies heavily on there being a significant degree of good faith, trust and co-operation between the parties, and a genuine desire to avoid formal court proceedings. My experience of the PAP-RCD over the last 22 years has largely been one of disappointment and I view it to have been a rather missed opportunity, in that I consider it not to have been as effective in resolving disputes pre-action as I believe was anticipated, and no doubt hoped, when it was incepted. That is not to say the PAP-RCD does not have merit or has not in many respects been successful; it has, and I have settled a fair number of cases over the years when a Letter of Claim has resulted in an open admission in the Letter of Response and consequential negotiation between the parties to reach settlement without the need to issue a Claim Form.

 

However, more often than not I have had problems with the PAP-RCD. Some of the main areas of difficulty I have encountered include the following.

 

First, disclosure. It is not uncommon to encounter inadequate disclosure of both documents and key facts during the pre-action period, such that litigation ends up being necessary for the claimant to establish the true facts in the case. I have had particular problems with defendants refusing to provide evidence that is beyond that which is just contained within the medical records, such as in witness testimony or in non-medical record documents. Although I should add that this now tends to be less of a problem in cases in which a formal internal incident investigation has been carried out. Another problem identified in the CJC’s report is disclosure of medical records and there is no doubt that it is necessary for the parties early on to work from the same full, sorted and paginated set of records to avoid any confusion. Having said that, I frequently experience delays with provision of a full set of medical records and, even in the digital age, it can be a time-consuming and expensive process having to obtain a full set of records from hospitals, in particular in complex and involved cases.

 

Secondly, delay. Letters of Response are very often delayed beyond the current 4-month timeframe, often by many months, which then delays the whole legal process, frustrates claimants and creates bad feeling early on between the parties. I do understand that, because clinical negligence cases are dependent upon expert evidence, the timescales can often be difficult to adhere to as experts are busy and four months is not long, but notwithstanding that better communication as to reasons for delays to avoid ill-feeling is paramount. Having said that, defendants, particularly NHS Resolution, will (as far as I am aware) not entertain investigating a claim until receipt of a formal Letter of Claim, which is unhelpful. In the past, I use to write Letters of Notification upon receipt of a supportive breach of duty report, as per paragraph 3.10 of the current PAP-RCD but, given to my knowledge this never resulted in any investigative step being taken by NHSR, I ceased that practice as a waste of time and cost. I have even had the PAP-RCD process abused by a defendant (not in an NHS case but a private healthcare case), who chose not to serve a Letter of Response citing on a without prejudice basis that liability was not in dispute and they were seeking pre-action resolution, and then months later, when they realised the true value of the claim, they decided to deny liability and litigation became necessary. Such unacceptable conduct unsurprisingly creates significant ill-will and distrust of the defendant by the claimant and undermines faith in the PAP-RCD process.

 

Thirdly, deficient responses. Even when received, Letters of Response are often manifestly inadequate, simply denying liability without any or any proper explanation of the reasoning behind the denials even if they are based on independent expert evidence. Such a response again simply fosters distrust by the claimant of the defendant. There is no good reason not to provide a comprehensive and complete Letter of Response so the claimant can understand the basis behind the absence of any admissions. Failure to do so provides the impression of disinterest and an unwillingness to take the claim seriously, as well as making the claimant feel that unnecessary delay has been caused to the progression of the claim for no good reason. Many claimants are already distrusting of the defendant and a PAP-RCD that is handled carelessly and insensitively can cause ill-feeling that will pervade throughout the rest of the litigation. In such a situation, the PAP-RCD may well actually end up doing more harm than good. Sometimes I have had Letters of Response (usually but not always from the Medical Defence Organisations) which are not even based on independent expert evidence but on an opinion from the treating clinicians or from clinicians at the defendant Trust, hospital or GP practice, which are obviously not independent, and which are therefore inadequate even if they do save on costs. I have even had the quite extraordinary situation of a claim handler assert that one of their colleagues in their office was a doctor and it was their opinion upon which the Letter of Response was based!

 

Finally, dearth of sanctions for breaches. Notwithstanding the above, in my view the primary problem with the PAP-RCD is that there are no genuine sanctions for a breach. In my experience, the courts do not penalise defendants for breaches, even flagrant breaches, so there is no risk to a defendant for failing to comply with the PAP-RCD. I understand from the CJC’s Interim Report that the most common complaint in response to their preliminary survey (80% of respondents) was that courts did not consistently enforce the PAPs and apply appropriate sanctions, which is my experience with the PAP-RCD. As I see it, the only real incentives to a defendant to comply with the PAP-RCD fully and properly are, first, that, if they consider their claim to be difficult to defend, it may result in early settlement which may save them costs, whereas, secondly, if they think they will win the case, they may manage to persuade a claimant to abandon their claim. However, the risk of punishment for a breach is negligible and defendants, even NHSR, sometimes seem to consider that, because they may have received an opinion from their own clinicians or an independent expert supporting their defence, their case is somehow unimpeachable and, as such, make no or minimal attempt to try to avoid expensive court proceedings via pre-action ADR (or merely pay it lip-service so it appears they are engaging with it). The PAP-RCD does not seem to have had any meaningful effect on this uncompromising stance, in particular in more recent years.

 

The CJC has raised a number of options for consideration, including (but not limited to): making all PAPs available online via portals; formally recognising that compliance with PAPs would be mandatory (save for urgent cases); introduction of a “good faith obligation” to try to resolve disputes or narrow issues pre-action, albeit that it would not be prescriptive; introduction of a joint stocktake report or list as a final step before formal proceedings; introduction of a summary costs procedure for costs liability and quantum cases independent of CPR Part 8; and expanded powers for the courts and new processes for raising compliance issues to facilitate a more robust, consistent and timely approach to non-compliance with PAPs (which in my view is a very important consideration). The consultation closes on 24 December 2021.

 

The PAP-RCD is laudable in principle but flawed in practice; and, whilst it has merit, until and unless the issues of disclosure, delay, deficiency in response and dearth of proper sanctions are addressed and resolved, in my view, it will remain flawed. Hopefully this CJC review will, at least to a significant extent, adequately tackle these problems.

[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CJC-PAP-Interim-Report.pdf

[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CJC-PAP-QUESTIONS-FOR-CONSULTATION.pdf

 

*Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

Dr Jock Mackenzie

jock.mackenzie@anthonygold.co.uk

Get in touch

Call, email or use a contact form – whichever suits you. We’ll let you know the best person to help you get started.

Call or Email

020 7940 4060

mail@anthonygold.co.uk

No comments

Add your comment

We need your name and email address to make sure you’re a real person. We won’t share your email address with anyone else or send you spam. Please complete fields marked with *.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code

Related Services

  • Birth injury

  • Brain injury

  • Psychiatric injury

  • Spinal cord injury

  • Accidents abroad

  • Accidents at work

  • Amputation

  • Child health and paediatrics

  • Faulty products

  • Non-Surgical Claims

  • Public liability and other accidents

  • Road traffic accidents

  • Special educational needs

  • Surgical claims

About the author

  • Dr Jock Mackenzie

Meet the team

  • Injury and Medical Claims

You might also like...

  • How do you choose your private hospital and consultant?

  • Blood test results, reference ranges, normals and abnormals

  • The private healthcare sector and patient safety – will it ever change?

Contact Us

Request a Call Back

About Us

  • Accessibility
  • Compliance
  • Responsible Business
  • Equality & Diversity
  • History
  • Our Beliefs
  • List of LLP members

Careers

  • Trainee Solicitors
  • Vacancies

Social Media

  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on LinkedIn
  • Follow us on Instagram
  • View our YouTube channel

Online Payments

  • Payment page through Worldpay

Accredited by

Lexel Parctice
76000Award

Copyright © Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC433560 and is authorised and regulated by the by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration Number 810601