The Best Laid Schemes of TECBAR and TeCSA: Potential Problems under the New Pre-Action Protocol

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

James Frampton

May 2017

A paper based on the joint second prize winning entry in the Hudson essay competition 2016 presented to a meeting of the Society of Construction Law in London on 2nd May 2017

This paper looks at the second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes which came into force on 14th November 2016.  James Frampton explores the context in which both the original Protocol and the second edition arose and in particular the findings of the Jackson Report and the Acuigen Study.  He evaluates the nature of the substantial changes to the previous provisions, including changes to the aims and objectives of the Protocol, and highlights the potential problems that may arise.  He also discusses the key addition of a new Referee procedure.  The paper praises the less prescriptive nature of the new edition and the potential for time and cost savings.  However, it also warns of a reduction in the Protocol’s effectiveness in narrowing the issues and in facilitating pre-action settlement, and of the potential for its use as a tactic to strengthen a party’s position.   

The first edition of the Protocol – The Jackson Report – The Acuigen Study – The second edition of the Protocol – Voluntary – Changes to the objectives and general aims – Letter of claim – Letter of response – Pre-action meeting – Potential problems with the new Protocol – The Referee Procedure – How will Referees’ decisions be enforced? – Conclusion.

The author: James Frampton is a pupil barrister at Keating Chambers, London.

Text: 13 pages

Paper number: 
D202
May 2017, online, 360k
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback