It is always the case that someone who has personal knowledge of a subject matter will know what they are trying to convey but may not do so in a manner that can be understood by others. Some people are just better at expressing themselves than others. Clarity is so important and ambiguity can lead to mistakes.
It is important to ensure clarity in both the statement of the case and witness evidence. Often, the person drafting the document may inadvertently write something ambiguous. As a result, the person endorsing it may interpret it differently, unaware that it may have a completely different meaning to others.
Examples
I have had some examples which I summarise here:-
A recent RTA case where the statements of the Claimant and Defendant drivers, in an accident on a roundabout, failed to adequately explain where they were coming from, where they were going, which lanes each driver was in and where they say the accident happened.
I once inherited a litigated case whereby the matter was proceeding to trial. The Claimant had delivered a stack of garage doors (that were intended to be motorised) to the Defendant’s location). The description of the accident was so vague, it was only once I actually discussed the matter with the Claimant that I understood the accident circumstances to explain how the Defendant’s employees had allegedly caused the accident.
Particulars of Claim and witness statement did not explain what lanes the Claimant and Defendant drivers were in, did not explain where they were going and where they came from. It simply said there was a collision.
This causes significant difficulty because the advocates, the Court and the witnesses simply have no proper understanding of what that party’s case or evidence is. I have had many cases where I genuinely believe my client’s version of events, but their credibility was ruined by poorly prepared statements and pleadings.
Evidence in chief
I constantly emphasise how helpful it would be for fee earners to either observe a trial (or, if within their competency and right of audience, conduct the advocacy) because it would improve their understanding of why the content of the statement is so important.
Fee earners either forget or do not realise that the witness statement is the evidence in chief. When I am in a conference with a witness and explain why the witness statement is so important, I explain that when they watch someone giving evidence in the witness box, they usually see live evidence in chief.
“You will see the advocate say to the witness ‘tell us what you saw…… and then what happened?…… and what happened?” and so forth. The evidence is elicited and once the advocate has got the witness to say everything they need, they sit down and let their opposition cross-examine the witness (which is why you get the phrase ‘stay there any my opponent may have some questions for you’, because when evidence in chief is given live, the witness may not appreciate that the questions they are being asked is just the start of the process).
Fee earners or staff who prepare the witness statement need to consider whether it adequately explains everything that any person who had read the statement understood perfectly.
Statement of case
The parties must understand that if something is not pleaded and it becomes an important part of the material facts, then it could be fatal if not pleaded. Whilst not expected to be in the same detail as a witness statement, the facts still need to be clear even if concise.
It needs to explain why the Defendant was at fault or why the Defendant was not at fault. Simply saying “they changed lanes and there was a collision” is insufficient for the reader to understand why.
Easy method
The straightforward approach is to treat it as if a police officer is asking the client exactly what happened. Ask the open-ended question, “Where did you start your journey?”. This will allow you to build the full picture.
Get the witness to explain how they approached the accident location, where they were going, what lanes they took, and when they first saw the the other driver. Elicit every single step.
The same applies for any type of claim, EL/PL personal injury, contractual dispute, housing. The issue is that relying solely on the ‘witness questionnaire’ almost certainly will not provide the information in sufficient detail. Use that, draft a skeleton of the witness statement and then call the witness. A five-minute conversation will fill the statement with the necessary information.
Cases can be lost on the lack of information and it can lead to an outcome that could be contrary to what actually happened.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
Stop the press because it is quite the game changer. It is assumed (subject to someone saying otherwise) that the Judicial Appointment Commission has appointed its first CILEX Lawyer as a Recorder.
CILEX announced that Nick Hanning was appointed to sit as a Recorder, which has since been open to CILEX Lawyers of 7 years PQE since 28th June 2023 when the pool of applicants increased.
Recorder? No, it is not a musical instrument
For those who don’t know what a Recorder is, here is teh JAC’s definition:-
Recorders may sit in both Crown and County Courts, but most start by sitting in the Crown Court. Their jurisdiction is broadly similar to that of a circuit judge, but they will generally handle less complex or serious matters coming before the court.
Recorders are required to manage cases actively as well as to determine claims at trial. A recorder’s duties include assisting the parties to prepare for trial, presiding over court proceedings and delivering judgments in both applications and contested trials.
Recorders are expected to sit for 30 days a year. Recorders may choose whether to count training days as sitting days. Newly appointed recorders have to attend a Judicial Studies Board residential induction course and to sit in with a circuit judge for one week. A Royal Warrant will then be issued and the recorder’s first week of sitting will be supervised. Recorders also attend periodical continuation courses lasting two days every three years.
I’ve been in front of a Recorder a few times, fortunately never gowned!
Increasing the judicial scope for CILEX Lawyers
In June 2023, the scope of judicial positions that CILEX Lawyers could apply to was increased to Recorders and Upper Tribunal Judges. This caused a divided opinion. While many welcomed the change, some saw it as a ‘dumbing down’ for the judiciary. I personally think that is nonsense. Expanding the eligibility does not reduce the criteria. I see regularly see and hear how many very capable and qualfiied applicants have been unsuccessful.
I even said that just because CILEX Lawyer become eligible does not mean that they will be successful. Only the creme de la creme will be appointed.
Who is Nick Hanning?
I don’t know the gentleman and I don’t think i’ve appeared before him before (if I have, and it was remotely, I am sorry for not realising) but I’ve heard many good things.
Nick has, of late, been sitting as a DDJ and a consultant of various firms including Anthony Gold (firm of the well known Giles Peaker of Nearly Legal Blog). He has a siginficantly importantt legal background, such as acting for the claimant in the seminal case of Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 which established employers’ vicarious liability for breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and in a case that achieved the highest ever Employment Tribunal award of over £4.5million.
He is many of the firsts for CLEX:-
One of the first CILEX Lawyers to become a partner in a law firm
One of the first CILEX Lawyers to be awarded lower rights of audience (ILEX Advocate as it was known as then)
One of the first few CILEX Lawyers to become a Deputy District Judge
However, if it is correct, then he is the only CILEX Lawyer to be appointed as a Recorder. That’s special. (Update – he was also the 49th President of CILEX).
To Nick, the CILEX trailblazer…. congratulations. Now get your higher rights of audience before everyone else. You can’t be one of the first partners/CILEX advocates/DDJs/Recorders and then let the Higher Rights slip by!
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
Understanding credit hire can seem quite technical, but once you grasp the principles, it becomes relatively straightforward. The judiciary shares this view, with credit hire of over £10,000 being allocated to the small claims track and credit hire of over £25,000 being allocated to the fast track. The same sentiment is being viewed in MOJ Stage 3 cases.
I was recently contacted by a law firm regarding a Defendant’s attempt to transfer a case to Part 7 because the Claimant had not disclosed bank statements. In their view, the failure to provide bank statements (when the Claimant’s claim was subject to the Hussain v EUI principle) meant the case was unsuitable for a Stage 3 hearing. I shared the same feeling that our esteemed colleague Skelator expressed:-
It goes to show that there appears to be a misunderstanding about how credit hire is dealt with at a Stage 3 and the RTA Low Value MOJ process. So here are tips and tricks on credit hire for RTA MOJ cases.
You still need the same evidence that you would adduce in Part 7 proceedings
Stage 3 hearings have been described as a ‘rough and ready’ system. Evidence is accepted as uncontroverted (unless the opposing party has appropriately uploaded contradicting evidence). However, the Claimant still needs to provide evidence. I have had many instructions to attend a Stage 3 hearing where credit hire is in issue, but no statement from the Claimant has been provided.
The absence of a statement can be devastating to a case if the credit hire agreement does not include any information at all required to support any assertions that the Claimant wishes to rely on (such as need, social/domestic, impecuniosity).
You should still prepare and upload a statement detailing the issues relevant to the hire. This is despite the fact that paragraph 7.11 of the RTA Protocol stating that “in most cases, witness statements, whether from the claimant or otherwise, will not be, required”.
All documents uploaded are endorsed with a statement of truth
Sometimes, documents like summaries or responses are prepared. They may or may not include a statement of truth. I’ve had many arguments about whether these documents comply with CPR. However, every time a new document is uploaded and a counter offer is made, the legal representative of the party signs a statement of truth. When the Court Proceedings Pack is sent, the Claimant signs a statement of truth. Therefore, any document relied on is endorsed by a statement of truth.
That being said, whilst this means the Court must accept the documents as true, the legal representatives must ensure the documents are accurate and true to the best of the client’s knowledge and beliefs. After all, any document where a statement can be signed by the legal representative is treated as being signed by the party:-
Pracice Direction 22
3.6 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on their behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not their own. They must state the capacity in which they sign and the name of their firm where appropriate.
3.7 Where a legal representative has signed a statement of truth, their signature will be taken by the court as their statement that:
(1) the client on whose behalf they have signed had authorised them to do so,
(2) before signing they had explained to the client (through an interpreter where necessary) that in signing the statement of truth they would be confirming the client’s belief that the facts stated in the document were true, and
(3) before signing they had informed the client of the possible consequences to the client if it should later appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts (see rule 32.14).
……..
3.9 A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in their own name and not that of their firm or employer.
Remember that if the Defendant applies and successfully has the matter transferred to Part 7 (and future evidence by the Claimant is to the contrary), then there would be a real risk to the Claimant to have endorsed something that was not correct.
Loss of use dates…. where is the evidence?
This is an issue that I quite regularly see in both small claims track and fast track credit hire cases. Whilst it is the Defendant’s burden to establish that the period fo hire was unreasonable, it is very easy for a Defendant to make such arguments in the absence establishing the time line of the loss of use.
For example, when the engineer was instructed when the report was received, when the payment from the Defendant was received, what steps were taken during the repair period to obtain updates/encourage the repair. The difficulty is that sometimes, this information is not something the Claimant has actual knowledge of but has access to (via their legal representatives or the credit hire organisation). This can be adduced in the same way as above or evidenced by a witness statement (usually setting out where the evidence came from).
I cannot count the number of times I’ve received a trial brief and found the loss of use dates within my instructions but no evidence within the bundle. As advocates cannot give evidence (and a Court will only consider what has been uploaded onto the portal and annexed to the Court Proceedings Pack) it is vital that such information is adduced.
Knowing when to defend an application to transfer to Part 7
As above, I had a law firm contact me regarding a Defendant who was asking the Court to transfer to Part 7 because they said the matter had become too complex. However, the actual issue the Defendant had with the claim was that the Claimant had not disclosed its income details. The Claimant was a taxi driver and as per the authority of Hussain v EUI, the starting point is that the Claimant ought to be limited to the loss of profit if the hire exceeds the same.
This was a flawed proposition. If anything it placed the Claimant in a precarious position if it was unable to satsify the Court that one of the three Hussain exemptions had not been met.
There will be times where a Defendant does raise a valid challenge to the hire claim proceeding via Stage 3. This will usually be when it objects to a proposition that the Claimant has put forward, and the only way to challenge this will be to cross-examine the Claimant. I cannot see any real prospect in defending this. The entire purpose of the Stage 3 process is for the Defendant to be liable for limited costs but not have the opportunity to controvert the evidence. It would only be fair that if the Defendant wanted to, it should be able to challenge that evidence.
However, there will be arguments that I say can and should be challenged. For example, a Defendant argues that impecuniosity has not been made out. However, even if the argument succeeded unless the Defendant adduces BHR evidence, the hire rates would prevail. A Defendant may argue that the very reliance of the BHR evidence makes the matter to complex for a Stage 3 hearing. I disagree with this. BHR evidence is almost always relied on as hearsay evidence. If there is anything the Claimant can challenge, it can usually be done based on the written evidence alone.
Even the argument that there are too many issues is probably flawed. For example, imagine you have a credit hire with period, rate, and impecuniosity being raised. You also have PSLA with three medical reports, physiotherapy, CBT, and a loss of earnings claim. Does this mean it cannot be dealt with at Stage 3? Definitely not. There is no fast rule about a time limit for a Stage 3. Courts such as Liverpool will block lists straightforward cases to be run in block lists with fifteen-minute hearing times. However, I have been in many Stage 3 hearings that are listed for one hour. This is usually plenty of time to get all submissions done. I also once had a two hour Stage 3 listed. All that is needed is that if the number of issues is significant, advise the Defendant and the Court that a longer EHT is needed for Stage 3.
Limit issues to what is raised in the Stage 2 negotiations
Usually, the Defendant will raise issues at Stage 2 but not others. In some cases, a Defendant will try to argue other points not previously raised. The nature of Stage 3 should prevent new issues from being raised. Namely, because the Claimant is not allowed to adduce evidence to challenge that point.
I would argue that by not raising the issue at Stage 2, the Defendant essentially conceded that issue. Like in Morgan-Rowe v Woodgate [2023] EWHC 2375 (KB), once the concession happened, the Defendant could not retreat at the trial (or subsequent appeal).
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
This is intended for guidance purposes, CILEX Regulation and the University of Law should be consulted for accurate information.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
I was contacted by someone who had a Defendant who was taking issue that a certificate of translation had not been served with the proceedings on the DCP. The two copies of the Particulars of Claim (English and that of the client’s own language) had been uploaded onto the DCP. The Defendant was threatening a strike-out application. Notwithstanding the Claimant ought to be given the opportunity to remedy before a draconian step such as a strike out is entertained, there is a question as to whether or not there is an actual breach of the rules.
What does CPR say about statements of case.
Before considering the rules, the logical point is that if your client’s main/only language is a language other than English, then naturally, they cannot possibly approve the pleadings if they cannot understand it.
That being said, that’s an issue for the party which, if at trial the pleaded case is wrong, falls on their legal representatives. However is it a breach of the rules as we would have with the witness statements?
There is nothing within Part 16 that has requisites, such as CPR 32, which requires a statement to comply with the Practice Direction (which in turn requires statements to be prepared in the witness’ own language). However, it does require a statement of truth as per CPR 16.2.
Even a statement of truth only needs to be in the language of the party when it comes to a witness statement as suggested by PD 22 para 2.2:-
2.2 The form of the statement of truth verifying a witness statement should be as follows (and provided in the language of the witness statement):
‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.’
This is an oddity. A statement of case is just as important as witness statement, yet there is no strict rule about the language issue. Of course, there is also another factor which may be the reason why such a rules does not apply.
The ability for a legal representative to sign a statement of case
I refer to PD22 paragraph 3.6,
3.6 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on their behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not their own. They must state the capacity in which they sign and the name of their firm where appropriate.
A legal representative cannot sign their party’s witness statement (or a list of documents, but that is a topic for another day), but they can sign a statement of truth on other documents such as Particulars of Claim, Defence and Part 18 responses.
One would need authority and instructions that the document is correct. Whilst it would avoid any potential issues with whether the statement of truth was validly signed (if they did not sufficiently understand English), paragraph 3.7 would mean the document was signed as if the party signed themselves:-
3.7 Where a legal representative has signed a statement of truth, their signature will be taken by the court as their statement that:
(1) the client on whose behalf they have signed had authorised them to do so,
(2) before signing they had explained to the client (through an interpreter where necessary) that in signing the statement of truth they would be confirming the client’s belief that the facts stated in the document were true, and
(3) before signing they had informed the client of the possible consequences to the client if it should later appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts (see rule 32.14).
It is important to ensure that your client understands the allegations being made. When your client asserts facts, make sure they are translated accurately from their language to English to avoid any misinterpretation. One thing is for sure, the statement of truth would need to be translated from English (i.e. the CPR valid version) into the client’s langauge.
However, in my view, there is no obligation to have the pleadings in their language. Any litigator would want to make sure the pleadings are approved by their client one way or another.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
I loved the Crystal Maze as a child (as no doubt many 90s children and adults did) and whilst I’ve not been to either of the live events (despite having a crystal from the crowdfunding of the original project in London) I would happily do it. Although I can almost certainly imagine myself getting locked in an event and my team saying “sorry, but we would prefer the additional five seconds in the Crystal Dome, rather than unlock you from the game”.
This may seem like a very strange segue (or justification for the Crystal Maze reference) but being locked in is exactly the topic of today’s posts. It is more commonplace for there to be a determination of PLSA at a Stage 3 hearing which includes a mixture of tariff and non-tariff injuries. For those who do not know, the Civil Liability Act 2018 and other legislation restricted whiplash injuries to a very low tariff award (where a three-month whiplash could attract an award between £1,680-£2,990, the tariff award is £240) and kindly increased the Small Claims Track limit in RTA claims (save for some exceptions) from £1,000 to £5,000.This applied to accidents that occurred on and after the 31st May 2021.
I will receive briefs to attend Stage 3 hearings where the parties’ views on PSLA are above and below the Small Claims Track limit. The increase of PSLA with inflation following the publication of the 17th edition of the JC Guidelines led to most valuations of the non-tariff injury pushing the total PSLA award above the £5,000 with ease. The question that follows is what happens if the final award for PSLA is below £5,000 (and the remaining heads of loss are not enough to get the total figure above £10,000)? Does the Claimant get its Stage 3 costs or will it be treated as if it was in the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims below the Small Claims Limited in Road Traffic Accidents (“the RTA SC Protocol”)?
When will a mixed injury claim appear in the MOJ process?
A Claimant’s claim is likely to end up in the MOJ process if they believe from the outset that the PSLA is going to exceed the threshold of £5,000 or the total claim (subject to the RTA SC Protocol caveat) will exceed £10,000. Most mixed injury claims actually start in the RTA SC Protocol. Para 4.5 states that either party can give notice that they reasonably believe the claim for PSLA now exceeds £5,000 or the overall total exceeds £10,000. In that circumstance, the matter must leave the Official Injury Claims portal and the RTA SC Protocol process. If the total claim is unlikely to exceed £25,000 then the Claimant sends an MOJ CNF on the MOJ portal (if there is an admission under the RTA SC Protocol) or if likely to exceed £25,000, proceed as if the SCNF was the letter of claim.
Of course, the point I made early is there is a caveat in terms of total value. It excludes non-protocol vehicle damages from this total. Non-protocol vehicle damage is a claim for any loss related to a vehicle that is not a loss directly held by the Claimant. For example, if the Claimant enters into a hire agreement for a car, this is considered to be a non-protocol loss as it is a third-party debt the Claimant owes. However, if the Claimant has paid for hire directly and wishes to recoup their loss, then this is considered to be protocol vehicle damage. The latter is taken into consideration when determining if the total value exceeds £10,000, the former is not. The rule makes clear wanted to avoid the proposition that a Claimant could escape the RTA SC Protocol by adding on hire charges.
So in those circumstances, the claim enters the MOJ portal and it proceeds to a Stage 3 hearing because there has been an admission of liability but damages have not been agreed.
When the mixed injury claim proceeds at the Stage 3 hearing
Subject to Part 36 (which applies when the overall Judgment is either more or less favourable than the relevant Part B offers) a Claimant, who is awarded PSLA in excess of £5,000 but not an appropriate £10,000 total claim limit, will receive the relevant Stage 1, 2 and 3 costs (with credit given to any sums already paid under the MOJ portal process. This is governed by Part 45 and Part 36. For this example, we shall be looking at the pre-Ocotber 2024 rules that apply to any PI accident that occurred before 1st October 2024.
Where the claimant obtains judgment for an amount more than the defendant’s relevant Protocol offer
45.20
Where rule 36.29(1)(b) or (c) applies, the court will order the defendant to pay – (a) where not already paid by the defendant, the Stage 1 and 2 fixed costs;
(b) where the claim is determined –
(i) on the papers, Stage 3 Type A fixed costs;
(ii) at a Stage 3 hearing, Stage 3 Type A and B fixed costs; or
(iii) at a Stage 3 hearing and the claimant is a child, Type A, B and C fixed costs; and
(c) disbursements allowed in accordance with rule 45.19.
Costs consequences following judgment
36.29
(1) This rule applies where, on any determination by the court, the claimant obtains judgment against the defendant for an amount of damages that is—
(a) less than or equal to the amount of the defendant’s Protocol offer;
(b) more than the defendant’s Protocol offer but less than the claimant’s Protocol offer; or
(c) equal to or more than the claimant’s Protocol offer.
(2) Where paragraph (1)(a) applies, the court must order the claimant to pay—
(a) the fixed costs in rule 45.26; and
(b) interest on those fixed costs from the first business day after the deemed date of the Protocol offer under rule 36.26.
(3) Where paragraph (1)(b) applies, the court must order the defendant to pay the fixed costs in rule 45.20.
(4) Where paragraph (1)(c) applies, the court must order the defendant to pay—
(a) interest on the whole of the damages awarded at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate for some or all of the period starting with the date specified in rule 36.26;
(b) the fixed costs in rule 45.20;
(c) interest on those fixed costs at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate; and
(d) an additional amount calculated in accordance with rule 36.17(4)(d).
However, there is no express rule to say if judgment is less than the £5,000/£10,000 limit as per the RTA SC Protocol. So how does one potentially consider this?
There is a rule in the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents from 31 July 2013 (‘the RTA LV Protocol’) that does address this point:-
Claimant’s reasonable belief of the value of the claim
5.9
(1) Where the claimant reasonably believes that the claim is valued at above the limit in paragraph (2) but at no more than the Protocol upper limit, but it subsequently becomes apparent that the value of the claim is below the limit in paragraph (2), the claimant is entitled to the Stage 1 and (where relevant) the Stage 2 fixed costs.
(2) The limit referred to in paragraph (1) above is £5,000 for damages for personal injury and £10,000 in total and is limited to claims where the claimant is not a child.
This does address the very point, but not necessarily in the manner that you may think. This rule is intended to ensure that where the Claimant truly believed PSLA would exceed £5,000, but the evidence eventually did not support the same, they would still get their Stage 1 and 2 costs.
The question is whether this rule applies if the matter proceeds to a Stage 3 hearing and the Court determines that PSLA is less than £5,000?
“I am sorry, but you are now locked in”
My opinion is that once part 8 proceedings commence and the Defendant completes the Acknowledgment of Service and does not object to the use of the process, the Defendant gets ‘locked in’ to the Stage 3 process and unless something leads to a dismissal of the Part 8 proceedings, the usual costs rules apply. So as long as the Claimant beats the Defendant’s Part B offer, they will be entitled to Stage 1, 2, 3 Type A and Type B costs.
The reason I believe this to be the case (and that para 5.9 of the RTA LV Protocol does not apply) is because Paragraph 8.1 of the RTA LV Protocol essentially delegates the Stage 3 process to Practice Direction 49F (‘PD49F’). Essentially it transfers from one self-contained set of rules to another. Therefore, paragraph 5.9 does not apply. That does not prevent the Defendant from exercising their right under PD49F para 8.3(d) and arguing that the process is not appropriate because the value of the claim could never be appropriate for the RTA LV Protocol process and therefore not appropriate for Stage 3. In that circumstance, the Court is likely to list it for a case management conference to determine whether it is appropriate to do so.
However, every time I’ve had an opportunity to test the theory as the Claimant, I have obtained damages in excess of £5,000 for PSLA, or my opponent has not raised it. We shall have to see if such a situation actually occurs.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
I promised about 3-4 weeks ago that I would write a post to assist those in small claims RTA litigation. I had some posts in the pipeline and now I will discuss what I posted on Linkedin below:-
I should say at this point that this is not criticism because I understand how volume litigation works. Those in small claims litigation must manage hundreds of claims at any given time. Therefore, time is a commodity that small claims litigators do not have.
Clients do not have a ‘scooby’ about what evidence the need to provide
I represented a client at a small claims trial who, on they day in question, returned to the car park to find damage to her car. There was also a note from a bystander who says they saw the damage and wrote down the VRN of the car (which was parked next to the client’s car in the car park).
The insurer/solicitors did not ask for a copy of the note (photograph or otherwise) and the note was left in the car which at a later date sold. Further it wasn’t until shortly before the matter was due to go to trial that the solicitors actually put the Defendant driver’s statement to my client who noted that the Defendant driver claimed his car was unlikely to have been in the car park because his house was only a 10 minute walk to the city centre.
My client then told the Solicitors “I have a photograph of the Defendant car positioned next to mine on the day of the accdient”. Not one person asked her what evidence she had. Fortunately, depsite the late disclosure, the Judge allowed my client to rely on it and it was very helpful for undermining the Defendant driver’s credibility.
This issue could have been avoided if the correct questions were asked of the client from the outset. A five minute telephone call could have elicited this information, with even the question “do you have any evdience regarding the accident, such as photographs, videos, texts?”. However, given the significantly high case loads for each fee earner, a clear and concise questionnaire could help to elicit the evdience that may assist.
It cannot always be something that can be identified early. Last week I represented a Defendant who was reversing out of her courtyard when a neighbour collided into the rear of her Range Rover. The neighbour claimed that she was going 10mph. The Defendant had Ring but could not access it and said so in her statement. However, they were eventually about to retrieve the footage. In Fast Track and beyond, that would have probably fallen within the realms of McTear & Anor v Engelhard & Ors (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 487.
If you use a Particulars of Claim template, ensure you amend it correctly
Judges quite often are annoyed with significant errors with the Particulars of Claim, with many:-
omitting the correct accident circumstances
failing to explain vehicle positions
failing to explain what the third party did that caused the accident
failing to plead any negligence allegations.
Whilst many Judges will take the broad-bursh approach to small claims track litigation, accepting that it is an imperfect system (and the overriding objective is to enable dealing with cases justly in the sphere of the value), there are some Judges who will find such failures made by professional acting for parties as the ‘authors of their client’s misfortune’. Whilst this may not lead to strikeouts, etc., it will often play a role when assessing the credibility of parties (as a prior inconsistent statement).
Using templates/precedents is vital in volume litigation. However, just a few minutes of consideration will avoid issues. It is clear from some defective Particulars that someone has used a precedent and made changes, including removing parts that weren’t necessarily changed or possibly changed. That was then used as a precedent for another case, where further changes were made, and then that one was used as the precedent. At some point the vital information was lost and the fee earner likely does not realise it was missing and this led to pleadings that was defective.
Having a straight forward formula can help to avoid these issues:-
Who, when, where, what and how?
Who are the parties (make sure your client was the driver or, if they weren’t the drive, state who the driver was)?
When did the accident (make sure the date coincides with the information you have bene provided)?
Where did the accident happen (check it against google maps and information provided and make sure it is explained a clear and concise manner that another person can identify the location easily)?
What happened (so often the explanation doesn’t actually explain what happened and says “the Claimant was proceeding when the Defendant collided into them”. How? From where?)?
How was the Defendant at fault (it should be clear what the Claimant said the Defendant caused the accident, but quite often it is not explained, not even in the negligent particulars)?
Those five points will ensure that a very basic, but clear accident circumstances within the Particulars will avoid issues later down the line and potential costs (such as application fees).
This will not be a time-consuming process. Even writing the five points on a piece of paper or in a memo will allow the drafter to be able to express what they need to say in very basic form so that when they amended the precedent particulars, they will know what they have to include.
Getting a witness on the phone for a 2-3 minute conversation can make all the difference
Volume litigation litigators cannot spend hours calling every client because they would never be able to get anything done. However someone calling the witness/party and having a 2-3 minute conversation about their witness statement will almost certainly reduce the errors that commonly arise.
Advocates will always have a conference with the party/witness before trial and usually ask them to confirm the accident circumstances and more often than it should, the accident circumstances are wrong (and substantially wrong where it will impact submissions and prospects). Whilst blame cannot be removed from a witness signing a statement to say it is factually correct when it is not, I often get told by witnesses that they were only contacted at the last minute and are pestered to sign a statement quickly because the deadline is later that day etc. We know that this is because nobody wants to incur the time of preparing a statement unless absolutely necessary. This is likely why witnesses panic and do not spend time reading the statement.
Nevertheless, I have worked with firms and worked in employed litigation where a paralegal assistant would call the witness and summarise the accident circumstance, etc, in a very brief summary. So for example:-
“I undestand you were driving the blue fiesta and you were proceeding along Westbury Road. You were in the left hand lane and you intended to go ahead at the roundabout toward Blobby Avenue. When you were almost at the roundabout the Defendant overtook you in the middle lane, the attempted to pull in front of you but they misjudged the distance and the back passenger door collided into the front drive side corner of your vehicle as the pulled over from their lane to yours. That’s what happened broadly speaking?“
The person isn’t going through the statement line by line, but the process allows the witness to be able to easily identify any errors that can then be remedied if need be. Then they are told they are going to be sent the statement, the must read it carefully and it is vital they let someone know urgently if there are any errors. These will usually be very tiny errors, rather than something substantial which the above process will identify.
I have had many tell me “yes but client like to chat and can be difficulty”. That’s normal for some individuals and realistically, those in litigation who talk to clients must have the skill to control a conversation. You don’t have to be rude but you can assertive:-
“Sorry, I do need to stop you. We have very little time and for the purpose of this call in Order to ensure you provide your statement in time I need you only to answer the questions I ask. You can of course email any additional questions to [inset name] who has conduct of your case”
I know from experience that initially, you feel very awful cutting up a client or witness when they may want to express their feelings or frustrations but they do not know what you know (that you are going to be very busy and have more things to do in the day that you have time).
Control the conversation, you will cut down the time and the paralegal assistant can get through a substantial number of calls and revert to the fee earner to let them know that the circumstances appear to be correct, subject to the witness’ approval or whether there is a substantial issue which the fee earner needs to consider.
This approach culls a large number of significant errors. It’s not infallible because witnesses can still skim read, not notice errors, and then raise the trial when it’s too late. That cannot be helped, but it is then not your fault. You may not be able to get the witness on the phone. It can happen due to the witness’ working hours. In some cases, you have no choice but to send the statement and hope they identify any major errors. Many will say that the 2-3 minute phone call is duplication. It is intended to identify significant errors early so the fee earner can decide how to approach the issue. If the accident circumstances are so different from what was pleaded, it gives the fee earner an opportunity to decide whether the statement is amended or whether authority is needed to consider settling/compromising.
Exhibit every document you intend to rely on
Whilst it should be the standard approach to disclosure within RTA SCT, quite often, documents get overlooked or, more importantly, do not get filed/served. Whereas when witness statements are exhibited with each document tend not to have any omissions.
Have a list of party’s documents you can tick off as you exhibit them in the statement reduces the risk of something being overlooked. A further point is that if it’s referred to in the witness statement, but omitted from the exhibits in error, there is a stronger argument for relief because the other party would have been aware/on notice of the document. It may even prompt them to ask for it.
When referring to an exhibit, including a line in the statement indicating the purpose of the document and why it is being relied upon is beneficial. This will help the Court, the other party, and the advocates understand its significance. In many small claims trials, advocates are asked by the Judge to clarify the purpose of a document because it’s not always clear on the face of it. Such reference should be identified in the trial brief to avoid confusion. More importantly, it may highlight that to the other side and may lead to a compromise.
Are these tips too burdensome for the benefits they may provide?
I understand that there have been concerns about the effectiveness of my suggestions and the potential for duplication of work. I want to clarify that my recommendations are aimed at streamlining administrative tasks by involving paralegal assistants in the process, which ultimately allows the fee earner to focus on more critical tasks without getting bogged down in administrative elements.
I’ve used this system before during my time in full-time litigation. I know of others who have successfully reduced the number of errors significantly by following these steps. Although this is just a guide and not a blueprint for the actual system, introducing these steps can improve litigation with minimal expenditure of time and resources, but will make a difference.
Some people may argue that these suggestions might not solve the problem because lay clients and witnesses might not read statements, or they might not understand or be able to express the issues accurately. This could be true, and it may result in their claim being dismissed because they are not effective witnesses, and their evidence is not accepted. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. However, the minimal extra effort required is small in the grand scheme of things and could significantly reduce errors. Since many cases now rely on deductions from damages, a case’s success is even more crucial. These tips aim to help improve small claim RTA claims with very little additional effort.
More importantly, you don’t want to go to trial in an SCT matter because the advocacy costs are not recoverable. Any steps that can help to do this ought to be considered.
These four points focus on ensuring all. tified early, ensuring pleadings are correct, identifying serious issues in witness statements early and ensuring no document is overlooked whenevidence is idenence.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
I am receiving instructions for fast track trials where the parties prepare and agree timetables for trial. It does seem, however, the timetables are not realistic. I can understand why. It is because, as with many litigators (including myself back in the day), they do not get exposed to trials (or regularly) to know what is an appropriate timetable.
I am not ashamed to admit that I would use precedent timetables for when the Court ask for a timetable. So I thought I would prepare a post to assist litigators about what to think about when
Why do Courts want timetables?
Time managment is important. What the Court wants to do is avoid matters being part-heard or having reserved Judgment unless absolutely necessary. We have an adversarial system and it is for the parties to bring the issues to the Court to determine (not for the Court to decide what the issues are).
Therefore the Court is dependant on the parties to be able to explain what the issues are (statement of issues, which is another post for another day) and how long each stage of the trial will be needed.
Templates I see regularly
I have seen this template regularly. I am unsure if it is a ‘proclaim’ template but it happens often.
One of the first things that stood out to me from this daft timetable were items 2 and 5. An hour for the Claimant and Defendant’s evidence? This obviously cannot be correct because in civil proceedings, witness statements are relied on in lieu of formal evidence in chief. This is different compared with criminal trials where evidence in chief is given live in the witness box.
There is usually no consideration given to the number of witnesses are being called for each party (the Defendant may not be calling any witnesses or maybe calling more but with less to attest to). Again, that is understandable.
What usually happens at a Fast Track Trial
In my experience an opening at a Fast Track Trial only happens when the issues are convoluted or unclear. The Judge wants to ascertain what they need to determine and this tends to be an open discussion with the advcoates. However, this can be an invitation by the Judge for the Claimant’s advocate to make a brief opening and, potentially, for the Defendant’s advocate to add anything else.
Another circumstance is where the Judge explains that they’ve not had the opportunity for a detailed review of the papers and would benefit from a summary.
I find it to be rare to have an opening for a fast-track trial. Based on my experience, the Judge will confirm their familiarity with the papers, outline the issues to be decided, and inquire about any additional matters that need to be addressed.
What is the best way to prepare an accurate time table?
Take the opportunity to observe some fast-track trials. This will allow you to see what happens and how long each part takes. Discuss the issue of drafting a timetable with more senior fee earners or even counsel. Keep in mind that each case will have its own unique facts, so you will need to conduct an analysis. While I would recommend asking your trial advocate, you may not be briefing them until after you file the timetable with the trial bundle.
In particular, here are a few points:-
How many witnesses are each party calling?
What is each witness discussing?
Even if they have a short statement, are there issues that might be put to the witness by the other party’s advocate?
Are the witnesses giving evidence in English? Cross-examination through a translator is very time consuming
Will there be any house keeping or applications heard at the start of the matter?
How many live issues are to be determined? If quantum, liability or causation is the only issue in dispute, then it can be the case that submissions and Judgment will be shorter
However, for peace of mind, it doesn’t matter if the timetable isn’t accurate or if you’re uncertain. Ultimately, the proceedings will happen as the Judge deemsimated trial duration is correct. This question can be addressed in a separate post on another day.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
Before I started fee earning myself I was always asked to prepare Pre-Action Disclosure applications for other fee earners. I cannot recall how many I had actually prepared.
I remember reading articles by Defendant firms that they were the cashcows of Claimant personal injury firms because, more often than not, costs were awarded in favour of the application (despite the fact that the presumption is that the Applicant pays the Respondents costs of the application and their compliance with the Order).
The courts became more stringent on these applications, which were often dealt with on a paper basis. Then the position on costs, following the introduction of the Fixed Costs Regime, was clarified with Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33 and the volume of applications dropped.
It means that new fee earners may not be familiar with Pre-Action Disclosure applications and may lack knowledge of the procedures for making or contesting these.
Pre-Action Disclosure – the clue is in the name
It may seem trivial, but the application is only valid before proceedings are initiated. CPR 31.16(1) makes it clear that such applications can only be made before proceedings are initiated. I once took over the conduct of a claim where a pre-action disclosure application was issued but then proceedings were issued before the application was listed for a hearing. The Defendant/Respondent was very clear in that they said the application no longer had any merit because it was now in breach of CPR 31.16(1) and the entire purpose was to obtain dislcosure before proceedigns were issued.
I cannot recall whether the application was withdrawn (which would have been the correct thing to do) or whether it proceeded and was dismissed. Nevertheless, it was definitely not a successful application.
QOCS does not apply to PAD applications
It is quite common for novice practitioners to not realise that QOCS does not apply to PAD applications, but it is made clear in CPR 44.
Qualified one-way costs shifting: scope and interpretation
44.13
(1) This Section applies to proceedings which include a claim for damages –
(a) for personal injuries;
(b) under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; or
(c) which arises out of death or personal injury and survives for the benefit of an estate by virtue of section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934,
but does not apply to applications pursuant to section 33 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or section 52 of the County Courts Act 1984(applications for pre-action disclosure), or where rule 44.17 applies.
(2) In this Section, ‘claimant’ means a person bringing a claim to which this Section applies or an estate on behalf of which such a claim is brought, and includes a person making a counterclaim or an additional claim.
So, an application cannot be made with the Claimant enjoying the security blanket. Given the position on costs, the Claimant must give appropriate consideration to this course of action before embarkation.
As mentioned in the introduction, the Court of Appeal (in the case of Sharp) determined that the fixed costs regime applies from the start of the claim, which is when a claim notification form is sent. So, if the case is subject to the fixed costs regime, then CPR 45.29H (or the equivalent) applies.
So this means that in many cases, it is ‘no QOCS, fixed costs’, which many will find to be a deterrent. However, a Claimant may only be able to adequately assess their prosepcts if they have sight of pre-action disclosure or a particular document.
The criteria for the application
This may also seem to be teaching readers to such eggs, but sometimes reliance on precedents can lead to a failure to address a particular point, which could make the application defective:-
It must be supported by evidence (CPR 31.16(2))
The Applicant and Respondent must be likely parties to the subsequent proceedings (CPR 31.16(3)(a)-(b))
The documents sought in the application must be documents that would fall within the definition of standard disclosure as per CPR 31.6 had it been issued (CPR 31.16(3)(c)).
The disclosure/documentation is desirable to either (i) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings (ii) assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings or will save costs (CPR 31.16(3)(d)).
It may seem silly, but I have seen some applications with no evidence at all. Obviously, a witness statement can be evidence, but when it does not cover the elements, it can lead to the application failing.
Explain why the documents will assist in disposing fo the claim
In many cases, the application seeks for an Order without a hearing. In those circumstances, you will need to make your submissions within the application (contrary to what would normally happen, as statements are to adduce facts). It is quite often that an application statement will request documents, but not explain why.
For example, if you are requesting a document to establish pre-existing knowledge of a defect, explain that. Explain how the adverse or supportive evidence will allow the Applicant to ascertain their prospects of success.
Pre-Action Disclosure is not appropriate for non-party disclosure
Occasionally I see applications made against hospitals, non-Defendant employers and other non-parties for disclosure, but pursued under CPR 31.16. This is not correct. Such applications are made under CPR 31.17. They used to be called Norwich Pharmacal Orders prior to CPR. They have their own rules but costs are also subject to CPR 46.1.
Make sure if you are making a PAD application; it is actually a PAD application rather than a Third Party Disclosure Order.
The rebuttable presumption regarding costs
Years ago I overheard two lawyers discuss a telephone call one of them just had with the Defendant’s Solicitors. The one lawyer who had the call said “he tried to tell me that we need to pay their costs, not the other way around”. The other lawyer laughed and replied by saying “haven’t they read CPR?”.
Sadly, they were both wrong and the Defendant was correct:-
46.1
(1) This paragraph applies where a person applies –
(a) for an order under –
(i) section 33 of the Senior Courts Act 1981; or
(ii) section 52 of the County Courts Act 1984,
(which give the court powers exercisable before commencement of proceedings); or
(b) for an order under –
(i) section 34 of the Senior Courts Act 1981; or
(ii) section 53 of the County Courts Act 1984,
(which give the court power to make an order against a non-party for disclosure of documents, inspection of property etc.).
(2) The general rule is that the court will award the person against whom the order is sought that person’s costs –
(a) of the application; and
(b) of complying with any order made on the application.
(3) The court may however make a different order, having regard to all the circumstances, including –
(a) the extent to which it was reasonable for the person against whom the order was sought to oppose the application; and
(b) whether the parties to the application have complied with any relevant pre-action protocol.
It is not enough to say “we need those documents”. The applicant must establish that the Respondent had refused to provide these documents and that it was unreasonable for them to do so.
For example, the court might be sympathetic to an applicant if there has been no response or involvement from the respondent. However, the Court is unlikely to be sympathetic if the Respondent can prove they never received the Applicant’s correspondence or if they have been complying with requests, and the Applicant seeks documents that the Respondent was not informed about or that were requested at the last moment.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
I was recently advised that in a Points of Dispute in response to a bill of costs, the paying party objected to the fact that a CILEX Lawyer has signed the bill. It was their proposition that only a Solicitor could sign a bill of costs. To add further context, this CILEX Lawyer was in fact a CILEX Litigator and Advocate in civil proceedings (not me). So not only were they a regulated lawyer, they had the right to conduct litigation.
Rules, rules, rules
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) still contain language that assumes the lawyer conducting the litigation is either a solicitor or is supervised by a solicitor. This was accurate in the late 1990s, but it is no longer the case. For example:-
CILEX Lawyers can now obtain the right to conduct litigation, which means they are no longer required to have compulsory supervision
Barristers can also obtain the right to conduct litigation.
Both of the individuals above may be the only authorised persons within a legal firm permitted to conduct litigation. This can be done through CILEX Entities, which are regulated by either CILEX Regulation Limited, or BSB Entities, regulated by the BSB.
What happens if the sole authorised person needs to do something which CPR says should be undertaken by a Solicitor? This is precisely the issue with the signing of a Bill of Costs.
In Precedent F of Practice Direction 47 (because there is no specific rule) it says:-
All certificates must be signed by the receiving party or by his solicitor. Where the bill claims costs in respect of work done by more than one firm of solicitors, certificate (1), appropriately completed, should be signed on behalf of each firm.
I am sure the first point to note is that it is gendered (and it ought to be gender-neutral in this day and age). The second is that it is restricted solely to a Solicitor who can endorse the certificate, other than the receiving party themselves.
So what happens when a law firm is not an SRA firm, does not have any Solicitors and a Bill of Costs needs to be signed?
The closest rule/direction to considering who can sign a bill of costs is PD44 para 1.1:-
In respect of any document which is required by Practice Directions 44 to 47 to be signed by a party or that party’s legal representative, the provisions of Part 22 and Practice Direction 22 relating to who may sign apply as if the document in question was a statement of truth. Statements of truth are not required in assessment proceedings unless a rule or Practice Direction so requires or the court so orders.
Who falls within the definition of a legal representative? CPR 2.3 can assist us here:-
‘legal representative’ means a –
(a) barrister;
(b) solicitor;
(c) solicitor’s employee;
(d) manager of a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 19859;or
(e) person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 200710, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act),
who has been instructed to act for a party in relation to proceedings;
This is a significantly broad scope because anyone who a Solicitor employs could sign a cost document which requires a statement of truth. However, there is something that would justify the above, that is s69(2A) of the Solicitors Act 1974:-
A bill is signed in accordance with this subsection if it is—
(a)signed by the solicitor or on his behalf by an employee of the solicitor authorised by him to sign, or
(b)enclosed in, or accompanied by, a letter which is signed as mentioned in paragraph (a) and refers to the bill.
This is, of course, concerning Solicitor-Client billing, but it does carry some weight as to why someone who is not a Solicitor may sign a bill.
The person who brought this to my attention had relied (in their reply to the points of dispute) on the case of Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367. If the Solicitor ( a sole practitioner) was ultimately liable for the accuracy of the bill of costs (which was drafted by someone else), then the liability for any inaccuracies fell with that Solicitor.
If a Solicitor authorises a non-Solicitor employee to sign a bill of costs, the Solicitor would still retain the liability. The same principle applies if a Barrister or CILEX Lawyer with litigation rights authorises a non-qualified employee to sign. Hickinbottom LJ appears to think so:-
“Although only an extension of the conventional principles of agency into the particular statutory field with which we are concerned, at a time when new business practices mean that solicitors are more frequently subcontracting work out to the unauthorised, it seems to me to be an important matter of principle that solicitors on the record – and other authorised litigators and “legal representatives” for the purposes of the CPR – understand that they remain ultimately responsible for the acts and omissions of those to whom they delegate parts of the conduct of litigation, particularly where those to whom such work is delegated are not authorised”
I would like to think that a Solicitor or authorised litigator would not want to risk personal responsibility for an erroneous bill because they did not check it themselves. In principle, I cannot see how it is an issue. The end result is the same.
As I said, I do think that CPR ought to be updated to reflect the fact that for some time, other authorised litigators have existed and will continue to increase in numbers (especially as CILEX lawyers who qualify via the new CPQ route will automatically be granted that practice right in their area of litigation).
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Privacy Policy
What information do we collect?
We collect information from you when you complete the contact form.
When completing the form you will be asked to enter your: name, e-mail address and brief instruction.
What do we use your information for?
That information is solely used to make contact with you in respect of instructing AJH Advocacy Limited in respect of court advocacy or drafting purposes. If you enter into an agreement/retainer with AJH Advocacy Limited then the information obtained will be dealt with in accordance with AJH Advocacy Limited's privacy policy contained within its terms and conditions.
If you do not, then your information will be deleted as AJH Advocacy Limited will no longer have need to retain it.
How do we protect your information?
We make contact with you once you have completed the form. Once we have made contact, the information in its original form (via this website) will no longer required and be deleted.
Do we use cookies?
Yes (Cookies are small files that a site or its service provider transfers to your computers hard drive through your Web browser (if you allow) that enables the sites or service providers systems to recognise your browser and capture and remember certain information
If you prefer, you can choose to have your computer warn you each time a cookie is being sent, or you can choose to turn off all cookies via your browser settings. Like most websites, if you turn your cookies off, some of our services may not function properly. However, AJH Advocacy Limited does not intend to use any third party software, such as Google Analytics. This policy will be updated should that change.
Do we disclose any information to outside parties?
The only third party that your information would be provided to, without your consent, is the Bar Standards Board ('BSB') who regulated AJH Advocacy Limited. This would only occur if an instruction is given and/or there is a retainer agreement between yourself and AJH Advocacy Limited. The reason consent would not be required is because the BSB can inspect AJH Advocacy Limited's records to ensure compliance. As above, your details will not be retained if you do not instruct and/or enter into an agreement with AJH Advocacy Limited.
Your Consent
By using our site, you consent to our privacy policy.
Changes to our Privacy Policy
If we decide to change our privacy policy, we will post those changes on this page.
Unsplash+
