This site uses cookies.

PI Practitioner, January 2020

16/01/20. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.

This month's practitioner update concerns the application of exceptions to the EL/PL Protocol.

Timothy Frank Colin Scott v Ministry of Justice, Sen Cts Costs Office (Deputy Master Friston) 05/12/2019

The Claimant, a prison officer, was injured when restraining a prisoner who resisted. A letter before claim was sent which referred to the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims ("the PI Protocol"). The Defendant acknowledged the letter and that the PI Protocol was said to apply. The parties agreed an extension under that protocol. The Claimant subsequently issued his Claim Form, which stated that he expected to recover no more than £5,000. At this stage the Claimant did not have the benefit of expert evidence or counsel's advice. The Particulars of Claim followed the receipt of expert evidence and a conference with counsel. The Claim Form value was subsequently amended to £30,000. The Defendant later made a Part 36 offer of £15,000 which the Claimant accepted. A dispute arose as to whether the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims (Employers' Liability and Public Liability) Claims ("EL/PL Protocol") applied so as to restrict the Defendant's costs liability.

The Claimant argued that the Defendant's costs liability was not restricted by the EL/PL protocol, because the... 

Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.