Given recent moves to encourage rehabilitation and the forthcoming implementation of the Courts Act 2003, perhaps now is an appropriate time to consider whether the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) should be revised to give it more teeth in these areas.The overriding objective urges co-operation and early exchange of information between the parties.

The pre-action protocol envisaged such behaviour would be second nature.

The reality, at least for now, is very different.In practice, there are numerous instances where one or other party fails to embrace attempts to introduce rehabilitation or the need to resolve liability swiftly as a first step.

For example, in cases:l Involving claimants under a disability where liability is in issue, the defendant is entirely in the hands of the claimant adviser as to when the issue of liability is litigated.l Generally, where liability is in issue, delays of only a few months early in the injured claimant's recovery can have profound long-term implications for the prognosis.

l Where rehabilitation is agreed in principle but the parties cannot agree on funding, as liability remains undetermined.l Where a defendant offers to fund rehabilitation at an early stage but the claimant or the claimant's advisers are determined to go down the 'battery of experts' route regardless.

By the time the issue comes before the court, the claimant has lost the chance to rehabilitate.This is just a reflection of the fact that claimants retain the upper hand in having the opportunity to litigate at a time of their choosing, subject to limitation.

Therefore, the courts should have the opportunity to intervene before a cause of action is litigated to determine the final award of damages or the level of interim/periodic award.The scope of part 8 proceedings should be extended to enable the parties to obtain judicial case management aimed at removing actual or perceived blockages in the resolution process.

By enabling the commencement of an action, the court should be able to 'encourage' more compliant behaviour or to make a ruling on the issue on which the rest of the action turns.The greatest impact of the Woolf reforms has been 'issue-specific' case control.

Once the building blocks have been identified in the action, all cases will move to resolution.

The suggested rule change would facilitate this if either side fails to address the issues promptly.

An alternative or additional steps in personal injury claims might be:l The reduction of the limitation period to, say, six months in all cases where a claimant refuses or fails to accept a defendant's offer to fund an immediate needs assessment for rehabilitation;l In cases where a claimant is under a disability, a reduction to two years from the date on which a legal adviser is first instructed.There is also the matter of the relevance of the issue in the context of the Courts Act 2003.

The claimant is to be given the significant opportunity to obtain long-term periodic awards whether or not the defendant acquiesces.The Act is clearly not cost neutral in the current financial market.

The lack and limited nature of annuity providers in the market leaves insurers with significant, enhanced claims spend in tail claims compared with the conventional lump-sum award.Defendants and insurers should be given every opportunity to maximise the impact of rehabilitation.

As the rules stand, the defendant is vulnerable to delays by the claimant and his advisers while still liable to pick up the tab.

Andrew Underwood is vice-president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers and a partner at Bolton-based law firm Keoghs