Court of Appeal Clarifies Powers in Paused Part 8 Claims

A landmark ruling in MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson v [2025] EWCA Civ 775 has brought long-awaited clarity to how courts can manage stalled personal injury claims under Part 8.

In a significant development for insurers and legal professionals, the Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark judgment in the case of MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Anor v Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775. This decision brings long-awaited clarity to the powers courts hold when managing personal injury claims that have been paused under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. For defendants facing stalled claims and prolonged silence from claimants, the ruling offers a path forward and a reminder that procedural rules are not a shield for inaction.

Why This Case Matters

For years, insurers and legal professionals have struggled with what to do when a claim under the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) stalls, especially after a Part 8 claim is issued and the case is stayed. This case confirms that courts do have the power to step in and get things moving.

The Background

The case began with a road traffic accident in September 2019. The Claimant started a low-value personal injury claim through the RTA portal. Although the Defendant’s insurer admitted liability, the claim didn’t progress.

To avoid missing the limitation deadline, the Claimant issued Part 8 proceedings in September 2022 and secured a 12-month stay;  despite repeated requests from the Defendant’s legal team (Carpenters), the Claimant failed to provide key information, like medical reports or a schedule of losses.

This silence led Carpenters to apply for an “Unless Order” requiring the Claimant to submit the missing documents or risk having the claim struck out.

Initial Court Decisions: No Power to Act?

• District Jude Baldwin dismissed the application, saying the court had no power to make such an order while the case was paused.
• Judge Wood KC upheld that decision on appeal, expressing sympathy but agreeing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Turning Point: Court of Appeal Steps In

The second appeal, heard in June 2025 by Lord Justice Coulson, Lady Justice Andrews, and Lord Justice Holgate, reversed the earlier rulings. The key takeaways:

• Courts do have power to manage stayed Part 8 claims. Both earlier judges were wrong to say otherwise.
• Silence isn't acceptable. Claimants can't start a claim and then go quiet. Courts can and should intervene. 
• Unless Orders with reasonable deadlines are appropriate. Even if the original 21-day deadline was strict, the court could have set a more reasonable one. 
• Defendants can act early. Applications can be made before a stay expires if the Claimant isn't engaging. 
• No more indefinite stays. Courts should not rubber-stamp stay extensions. Low-value claims don't deserve more leniency than serious injury cases.

What This Means for Insurers and Defendants

This ruling is a significant one. It gives insurers and defence lawyers the tools to challenge claims that are stuck in limbo. Courts now have clear authority to enforce progress - even when a case is paused.

It also reinforces the importance of complying with the PAP before limitation expires. In this case, the Claimant didn't even see a medical expert until four months after the deadline, a delay that goes against the spirit of the protocol.

Final Word

The Court of Appeal has sent a strong message: the PAP is not a place for claims to disappear into silence. With this judgement, the balance has shifted, bringing fairness, clarity and accountability back into progress.