Court of Appeal clarification on Pre-Action Protocol claims stayed under Part 8

The recent Court of Appeal decision in MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson [2025] confirms court powers to manage personal injury claims stayed under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

On 24 June 2025, judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on the issue as to whether the court has the power to make directions in claims that were issued under CPR Part 8B due to limitation but remained within the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value RTA Claims (PAP).

Background

Since the introduction of the various Ministry of Justice (MoJ) portals, provision has been in place for claims where liability is admitted to remain in the portal if the claim is required to be issued due to the approaching limitation period. The rationale being that often in such circumstances the claimant’s medical evidence is incomplete so the claim could not proceed to the Stage 2 settlement pack process. Claims are issued pursuant to CPR 8B and a stay is sought to enable the medical evidence to be completed with the aim being to complete the MoJ portal process while the claim is stayed.

This has historically resulted in difficulty where claims were granted long or indefinite stays, leaving the claim stagnant and defendants limited opportunity to progress the matter.

In MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor, the claim commenced in the RTA claims portal following a road traffic accident on 16 September 2019. Liability was admitted by the defendant insurer when the claim remained in the portal. The claim did not progress to Stage 2 and the claimant issued Part 8 proceedings on 6 September 2022 for limitation purposes and sought a stay in proceedings to allow them to finalise medical evidence. The District Judge ordered a 12 month stay in proceedings on the condition that if the claimant either failed to apply to lift the stay and proceed to a Stage 3 hearing, or applied to have the matter transferred to Part 7 within that 12 month period, the claim would be struck out.

The claim remained inactive. In June 2023 the defendant sought an Order that the stay be lifted and unless the Stage 2 settlement pack was submitted in 21 days, the Part 8 claim be struck out. At the hearing of that application, the District Judge was not persuaded that the court had the jurisdiction or management powers to order a claim to move to Stage 2.

The defendant appealed. His Honour Judge Wood KC dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to force a claimant to upload the Stage 2 pack.

Court of Appeal decision

The matter was then appealed to the Court of Appeal.  Lord Justice Coulson rejected the arguments from the claimant that this was an academic issue because by this time the claim had already left the pre-action protocol and confirmed:

• The court does have jurisdiction to make Orders in relation to alleged non-compliance with the portal protocols. This will require claimants to comply with the obligations in respect of providing the Stage 2 settlement pack.
• The PAP is a self-contained process and not ordinarily subject to the court’s jurisdiction but the critical point is that when the claimant issues Part 8 proceedings, the court then has the jurisdiction to deal with Part 8 claims in accordance with the CPR.
• The court has the power to give direction to try and secure compliance by the claimant with the PAP. The court should intervene if a claimant starts a claim and then goes silent. Coulson LJ observing that in this case “[t]here is no evidence that, between the admission of liability on 30 July 2020, and the Part 8 application issue on 6 September 2022, the claimant did anything at all to progress the claim in the PAP.”
• Defendants have liberty to apply if they consider a stay is too long or the claimant is not engaging.
• The court should no longer grant indefinite stays as it effectively gives the claimant longer time to bring proceedings than is afforded under the Limitation Act 1980.

Comment

The judgment is welcome news for defendants frustrated with lengthy and sometimes indefinite stays in proceedings, resulting in a claim that did not progress. The judgment also provides the foundation to support a more proactive approach by defendants and insurers in considering whether to apply to curtail a court imposed stay and seek an Order in relation to the claimant’s engagement with the proceedings.  

The ruling will apply to the Pre-Action Protocols for RTA claims and the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims.