Litigation and things


Drinks Reception & Jazz

21 September 2016 | 6.30pm | Nabarro


COST:  Free

CLICK HERE for further information.

All are welcome, including those considering TeCSA membership.

The purpose of TeCSA 10s is to promote, encourage and support the careers of lawyers with less than 10 years post-qualification experience who are committed to practicing construction and information technology law.  It is an integral part of TeCSA and you must be a member of TeCSA to be a member of TeCSA 10s.  New members with less than 10 years post-qualification automatically will become a TeCSA 10s member and our current members, with less than 10 years post-qualification, will receive a separate email in due course inviting you to take part in this new group (at no extra cost).

Dispute Boards in Action - Seminar

A joint TeCSA/DRBF UK event!

Please CLICK HERE for further details.

Date:  Wednesday, 22 June 2016

Venue:  CMS, Cannon Place, London  EC4N 6AF

Time:  17:30 - 19:30


Champagne Summer Party 2016

When:  Wednesday 8th June 2016

Where:  Roof terrace of King & Wood Mallesons

Time:  6.30 - 9.00pm


We look forward to seeing you there.

New research on the Pre-action Protocol

Just released:  "A Report Evaluating the Perceived Value of the Construction and Engineering Pre-action Protocol"

As you may recall last summer TeCSA sponsored a major piece of research evaluating the perceived value of the Construction and Engineering Pre-Action Protocol.

This study was preceded by the joint TeCSA and TECBAR Survey Monkey on the Jackson reforms, cost budgeting and PAP. One of the questions in that TeCSA and TECBAR survey on the PAP revealed it was seen to meet its broad principles.

With news the PAP might be abandoned or heavily modified by the Rules Committee to make it voluntary and knowing amongst solicitors it was seen as a widely popular protocol for the most important entity, the client, TeCSA decided to undertake a detailed study obtaining views from not just solicitor specialists but from across the industry.

The final report, AVAILABLE HERE, is focused entirely on the PAP and has been sponsored by TeCSA and involved our commissioning Acuigen, a provider of market intelligence services to conduct the research.  The project ran from the Summer 2015 to December 2015. For those that contributed a big thank you.

The research has included the examination of data records from 216 disputes, supplemented by 39 in-depth telephone interviews with law firms providing construction services and leading construction companies who collectively had experience of 677 disputes to which the PAP was applicable.

Overall, 95% of respondents thought that the PAP was a valuable pre-action mechanism and 87% believe that it is creating access to justice.  49% of respondents suggested amendments to make the PAP more effective.

These results underline the fact that the PAP is overwhelmingly valued by those who are directly involved with disputes in the engineering and construction sector.

Based on this evidence, TeCSA would say there should be no doubt that the PAP ought to remain and that it should continue to be a compulsory step for those wishing to pursue a claim through the courts.

You may be interested to read that in examining how the PAP could be amended, approximately 75% of respondents felt that access to TCC judges pre-action or to apply for their guidance would be beneficial. 

The feedback on ways to improve the PAP clearly showed that learned judges of the TCC can contribute to the effectiveness of PAP by making themselves available to both parties to give guidance.

One area of active discussion relating to the PAP relates to the question of costs.  As you know presently a defendant is unlikely to recover costs involved in rebutting a claim from a litigant that does not go to trial.  Resolving such issues around pre-action costs was a favoured suggestion by 56% of respondents.  It seems to us that the issues surrounding costs are a key area for discussion within the Civil Procedure Rule Committee looking at reform and TeCSA has urged them to focus on this area whilst recognising the value of the PAP as a mandatory pre-trial mechanism.

As regards the contributors to this study they came not just from Solicitors, but also main contractors, specialist subcontractors, consultants and insurers:

DLA Piper, Fenwick Elliott, Glovers, Herbert Smith Freehills, Hill Dickinson, K&L Gates, Nabarro, Pinsent Masons, RPC, Squire Patton Boggs, Stephenson Harwood, Thomson Snell & Passmore, Weightmans, White & Case, Wragge Lawrence Graham, Addleshaw Goddard , Berwin Leighton Paisner, Brecher, Burges Salmon, Freelance, CMS, Davies and Partners, Dentons, Eversheds, Holman Fenwick, King & Wood Mallesons, Macfarlanes, Mayer Brown, Nabarro, Payne Hicks Beach, Rosling King, Simmons & Simmons, TLT Solicitors, Taylor Wessing, AECOM, ARUP Group Limited, Atkins Limited, Aviva, Bachy Soletanche, Kier, Laing O'Rourke, Mace Group, NG Bailey, Permasteelisa, Prater, Skanska UK Plc.  (There were eight additional contributors who wished to remain anonymous.)

CLICK HERE to download a copy. 

Please do read and circulate! 

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 159.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 24.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 134.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/c25styl/public_html/ on line 134.