MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775 (24 June 2025)

MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775 (24 June 2025)

Once Part 8 proceedings are issued to protect a claim from limitation, the court has jurisdiction to make case management orders, including requiring compliance with the PAP, and may impose conditions or stays to facilitate such compliance. District Judge Baldwin and Judge Wood were wrong to conclude otherwise.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 775
Parties
Appellant/defendant: MH Site Maintenance Services Limited; Appellant/defendant: Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited; Respondent/claimant: James Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocols, Case Management Powers, Limitation, Road Traffic Accident Claims, Court Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Pre Action Protocols Case Management Powers Limitation Road Traffic Accident Claims Court Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MH Site Maintenance Services Limited

Appellant/defendant

Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited

Appellant/defendant

James Watson

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have jurisdiction to make directions relating to compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value RTA Claims when Part 8 proceedings have been issued?
  2. 2 Is the appeal academic given the claim's transfer out of the PAP?
  3. 3 Should the court exercise its discretion to compel compliance with Stage 2 of the PAP?

Ratio Decidendi

Once Part 8 proceedings are issued to protect a claim from limitation, the court has jurisdiction to make case management orders, including requiring compliance with the PAP, and may impose conditions or stays to facilitate such compliance. District Judge Baldwin and Judge Wood were wrong to conclude otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of District Judge Baldwin set aside
  • Court has jurisdiction to make case management orders requiring compliance with PAP after Part 8 proceedings are issued