From Portal to Courtroom: The Court of Appeal Confirms Case-Management Jurisdiction over Pre-Action Protocol Compliance once Protective Part 8 Proceedings are Issued – Commentary on MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775

1. Introduction

In MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson the Court of Appeal resolved a recurrent but previously unsettled procedural question: can the county court (and by extension any civil court) compel a claimant to progress a Low-Value Road Traffic Accident claim within the electronic Pre-Action Protocol (“the RTA Portal”) once the claimant has issued – and immediately stayed – protective Part 8 proceedings to avoid a limitation defence?

The dispute arose after the claimant, Mr Watson, triggered the portal but took no meaningful Step 2 action for nearly three years, yet issued a Part 8 claim shortly before limitation expired. The defendants (employer and insurer) sought an unless order requiring service of the Stage 2 Settlement Pack within 21 days, failing which the Part 8 claim would be struck out. Both the district judge and a circuit judge on first appeal refused, holding that the court had no jurisdiction to direct performance of pre-action protocol obligations. The Court of Appeal (Coulson LJ giving the leading judgment; Andrews and Holgate LJJ concurring) disagreed and reinstated the defendants’ appeal.

Although the underlying personal-injury claim is worth less than £10,000, the judgment establishes an important principle of civil case-management that affects thousands of low-value claims per annum and clarifies the interaction between:

the RTA Pre-Action Protocol;
Practice Direction 49F (formerly PD 8B);
the court’s general powers in CPR r.3.1; and
the doctrine of “protective” Part 8 claims used to defeat limitation defences.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants’ second appeal on the following core point: once a claimant has invoked the court’s jurisdiction by issuing a Part 8 claim (even if immediately stayed under PD 49F ¶16), the court’s ordinary case-management powers under CPR 3.1 apply. Those powers include making direct or conditional orders compelling a claimant to take outstanding procedural steps in the RTA Portal, such as serving a Stage 2 Settlement Pack.

Key holdings include:

The district judge and circuit judge wrongly drew a bright-line between the PAP process and the Part 8 “case”. Once proceedings exist, the PAP steps may be policed indirectly (via a stay) or directly (via specific orders).
Paragraphs 13–15 of the PD on Pre-Action Conduct expressly envisage the court staying or managing proceedings to secure PAP compliance.
CPR r.3.1(2)(g) & (p) confer broad discretion to stay proceedings conditionally or “take any other step” to further the overriding objective.
The appeal was not “academic” despite the claim having subsequently exited the Portal; the issue was one of general importance and routinely arises across county courts.
While the particular unless order sought (21 days to serve a pack on pain of strike-out) was “too draconian”, jurisdiction existed; the lower courts erred by refusing to consider proportional directions on the mistaken view that no power existed.
The Court cautioned against routine or indefinite extensions of PD 49F stays, emphasising that limitation protection is an indulgence not a licence for inertia.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court referenced and built upon several earlier authorities:

Jet2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes [2019] EWCA Civ 1858 – confirmed that certain CPR powers (contempt) apply even to pre-action conduct; used to illustrate overlap between PAPs and court jurisdiction.
Cable v Liverpool Victoria [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 – held that abuse-of-process principles can bite on PAP non-compliance; Coulson LJ’s earlier remarks about the interweaving of PAP rules and CPR were revisited and reinforced.
Hutcheson v Popdog [2012] 1 WLR 782 – standard test for hearing appeals that are academic inter partes; distinguished but framework applied to show why this appeal should proceed.
R (L, M, P) v Devon CC [2021] and R (SB) v Kensington & Chelsea [2023] – more flexible modern approach to hearing academic appeals; supported the court’s discretion.

The Court did not overrule any authority; rather, it harmonised them by clarifying that once proceedings exist, the full suite of CPR powers is available notwithstanding that part of the factual matrix lies within a PAP.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Nature of the PAP – A voluntary, claimant-initiated scheme aimed at avoiding litigation; ordinarily outside judicial control.
Effect of Issuing Part 8 Proceedings – Filing a claim “invokes the court’s jurisdiction”; thereafter the PAP is no longer hermetically sealed. The Part 8 claim becomes “the case” within CPR 3.1(2)(p).
Powers to Stay and Impose Conditions – CPR 3.1(2)(g) authorises stays “until a specified event”. Imposing compliance with Stage 2 steps as the “event” is squarely within this wording. Alternatively, CPR 3.1(2)(p) permits “any other order” that advances the overriding objective (dealing with cases justly, at proportionate cost and expeditiously).
Practice Direction Support – PD Pre-Action Conduct ¶15(b) expressly allows courts to stay proceedings “while particular steps are taken to comply with the protocol”. This textual hook rebuts any suggestion of a lacuna.
No Artificial Distinction between “Indirect” and “Direct” Control – An order shortening a stay and an order compelling service of the Settlement Pack are functionally identical: both pressure the claimant to progress Stage 2. Denying jurisdiction over the latter but not the former is illogical.
Policy/Floodgates – The Court acknowledged concerns about over-burdening district judges but emphasised that: (a) such applications will be rare and reserved for egregious delay; (b) claimants must not misuse protective claims to secure de-facto extensions of the statutory limitation period.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The decision has immediate and systemic repercussions:

Guidance for District Judges – Confirms that judges can make specific or conditional orders regulating PAP compliance where Part 8 proceedings are on foot. “I have no jurisdiction” is no longer a defensible stance.
Litigation Tactics – Defendants now have a clear procedural tool to combat inertia in the Portal without forcing a Part 7 transfer (which expands costs exposure).
Limitation Strategy for Claimants – Protective Part 8 filings will not insulate claimants from judicial scrutiny; dilatory practitioners risk orders – possibly strike-outs – if they fail to progress Stage 2.
Consistency with the Overriding Objective – Reinforces proportionality and expedition in low-value injury claims, preventing unnecessary escalation and safeguarding the cost-saving purpose of the RTA Protocol.
Indirect Effect on Other PAPs – Although the ruling concerns the RTA Protocol, the reasoning logically extends to Employers’ Liability, Public Liability and Clinical Negligence PAPs whenever protective claims are issued and stayed.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Pre-Action Protocol (PAP): A set of procedural rules parties are expected to follow before formal court proceedings, aiming to encourage early settlement.
RTA Portal “Stages”:
- Stage 1: Liability investigation; ends with defendant’s liability decision.
- Stage 2: Quantum negotiation; claimant serves a “Settlement Pack” (medical report, losses, offers) and parties exchange offers.
- Stage 3: If no settlement, limited court involvement to assess damages.
Part 8 Proceedings: A simplified court procedure (normally used for claims not requiring substantial factual investigation) here adapted by PD 49F for low-value RTA claims, often filed purely to stop the limitation clock.
Protective Issue / Limitation: Issuing a claim just before the statutory limitation period expires, to “protect” the claim while further work (e.g., medical evidence) is completed.
Stay: A court order pausing proceedings. A “conditional stay” means the pause lasts only if specified steps (e.g., serve Settlement Pack) are completed.
Unless Order: A sanction order – if the specified step is not done by the deadline, the claim (or defence) is automatically struck out.

5. Conclusion

MH Site Maintenance v Watson fills an important gap at the intersection of pre-action practice and formal litigation. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the judiciary’s case-management toolbox does not slam shut when a claim is parked in the RTA Portal; issuing protective Part 8 proceedings opens the door to judicial oversight. The ruling discourages strategic delay, restores balance between claimants and defendants, and upholds the overriding objective by ensuring that low-value personal-injury claims proceed efficiently without unnecessary escalation or cost. Practitioners on both sides must now factor in the real prospect of court-imposed deadlines for PAP compliance whenever they resort to the protective claim mechanism.