Pre-action disclosure

APIL invited its members to share their experiences of issuing pre-action disclosure (PAD) applications in their local courts. Many had experienced no problems reporting that at Swansea, Birmingham, York, Liverpool, Doncaster, Blackpool, Nottingham, Lincoln, King’s Lynn, Wolverhampton, Bolton, Bradford, Redding, Eastbourne, Maidstone, Llangefni, Worthing, Weston-Super-Mare, Bristol, Sheffield and City of London county courts they had always received their costs. In the majority of cases, defendants eventually provided disclosure and it was not necessary to issue PAD applications. When they are made, the courts were generally receptive to them if used appropriately and backed up with good evidence of attempts to get the information through the established means. Where the solicitors are able to show that the defendant has clearly breached the protocol in terms of disclosure and received a clear request for the documents and appropriate warning, they usually recover their costs. PAD applications are not however welcome in all courts. In Brighton County Court, two judges consider costs to be in the case, and the St Helens County Court judges are ‘grudging’ in their award of costs. Carlisle County Court is apparently trying to discourage PAD applications while in Leeds practitioners are wary of making applications to particular judges. A judge at Blackpool County Court has stated that he considers PADs as nothing more than a way for claimant’s solicitors to increase costs.