Reflecting on Watson v MH Site Maintenance and Markerstudy Insurance

Watson v MH Site Maintenance & Markerstudy Insurance - 6 Months after the Court of Appeal decision, have we seen a change in the Court’s approach to stays?

It has now been over six months since our Court of Appeal win in Watson v MH Site Maintenance & Markerstudy Insurance where the Court of Appeal held that District Judges have the case management power to make robust Orders in Part 8 stayed matters and provided much needed guidance on how Courts should approach applications for stays in low value personal injury matters.

Since the welcome clarification provided by the Judgment, we have seen District Judges demonstrating much more of a willingness to make Unless Orders, particularly in matters that have been subject to indefinite or multiple stays, the imposition of which often lead to little progress being made on cases.

We have further seen a change in Claimants’ representatives behaviour, recognising the need for proactivity and to get on with the case.

Below are several anonymised example case commentaries wherein we have successfully utilised the principles set out in Watson to our client’s benefit:

H v H - Norwich County Court

• Accident date July 2018; the Claimant had the benefit of an indefinite granted on the 1^st October 2021.
• On 6^th October 2025, the Claimant’s Solicitors filed an application to lift the stay and transfer the matter to Part 7 with permission to increase the Statement of Value to £70,000.
• The Orthopaedic expert recommended MRI scans in June 2021 but it was some 3 years later, in May 2024, when the Claimant’s Solicitors informed our client he did not wish to undergo the same. We argued this was an unacceptable delay and entirely contrary to the spirit of the Protocol and Watson
• Details of the Claimant’s special damages were only presented in August 2025, with no explanation given for the significant delay, and amounted to £47,000.
• In view of the above, it was argued the indefinite stay was not utilised for the purposes it was granted, which amounted to an abuse of Court process pursuant to ‘Cable’. The Claimant’s Solicitors could not demonstrate they had taken any meaningful steps to progress the matter towards submission of a Stage 2 pack throughout the stay.
• Upon transfer to Part 7 and allocation to the Multi-track, the Claimant was forbidden to recover any costs up until the point of transfer save for disbursements. The Order saved our client seven years worth of Claimant’s hourly rate costs.

S v H - Aldershot & Farnham County Court

• Accident date May 2021; the Claimant had the benefit of an indefinite stay granted on 11 April 2024
• The Claimant was diagnosed with trochanteric bursitis in her left hip and PTSD.
• An Unless Order for the Claimant to progress this matter was granted until the end of March 2026 and the Claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the application
• The Claimant sought to appeal the Order but this was dismissed.

B v E - Southend County Court

• Accident date 17 November 2021, the Claimant had the benefit of an indefinite stay dated 14 October 2024
• A report from a GP expert was disclosed wherein an eight month prognosis was given for a neck injury and a report from an Orthopaedic Consultant was recommended for a lower back injury. The recommendation was historic having been made several years prior to issue but no further medical evidence was served nor any indication given as to when a Stage 2 Pack would be submitted.
• Application for an Unless Order filed and granted until 5^th November 2025
• The Claimant’s Solicitors did not attend the hearing and so they made an application to set aside the Order; the day before the hearing they disclosed Orthopaedic medical evidence that had been in their possession for over a year. The Judge refused the application.