What are they?A creation of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), the pre-action protocols outline the steps parties should take to seek information from and to provide information to each other about a prospective legal claim.There are currently five pre-action protocols in force: personal injury, clinical negligence, construction and engineering, defamation and the latest baby -- in force from 16 July 2001 -- professional negligence.Their objectives are:-- To encourage the exchange of early and full information about the prospective legal claim;-- To enable the parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of the claim before the start of proceedings, and;-- To support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided.Spot the differenceThere are both many similarities between the existing protocols and some quirky differences.

All provide for letters of claim containing sufficient information to enable a defendant to investigate, a timetable for a response and provisions regarding expert evidence and disclosure.

Bespoke clauses have been tailor-made to fit the particular protocols.What is required when?Whereas a recipient of a personal injury letter of claim has three months from the acknowledgment of the claim to 'investigate', those in a similar position under the clinical negligence pre-action protocol have the same time to 'provide a reasoned answer'.

In defamation cases, where time is of the essence, a 'full response' is required as soon as is 'reasonably possible'.How many experts?While the personal injury pre-action protocol encourages the appointment of a single expert, in clinical negligence cases decisions on whether experts might be instructed join tly, and whether reports might be disclosed sequentially or by exchange, rest with the parties and their advisers.

This was an approach endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Oxley v Penwarden, 21 July 2000 CA, unreported, despite its apparent conflict with CPR Part 35.7.AdmissionsIn personal injury cases, where liability is admitted, there is a 'presumption' that the defendant will be bound by this admission for all claims with a total value of up to £15,000.

On the other hand, in clinical negligence claims, it is 'intended' that admissions be binding.

Is this difference more apparent than real? And, can a defendant resile from such an admission? As yet, there is a paucity of cases on the subject.In Thomas v Davies (a decision of a district judge reported in Current Law, September 2000) it was held that, as a matter of law, a defendant could resile from an admission made by his insurer but whether he should be allowed to do so had to be considered in the light of all the circumstances.

The presumption was rebuttable and had to be examined in the light of the overriding objective.

Here there were significant issues to be tried going to the heart of liability and the defendant had a real prospect of success.

There would be overwhelmingly more prejudice to the defendant in denying him the right to defend than to the claimant in causing him disappointment by allowing resilement.However, in Hackman v Hounslow LBC (a decision of a circuit judge reported in Current Law, October 2000), the court came to a different conclusion.

The CPR were intended to make litigation more certain.

Although CPR Part 14.1(5) gave the court the power to permit a party to withdraw from an admission, the burden rested on the party applying.

The judge was influenced by the fact that the pre-action protocol indicated that admissions were expected to hold good.To meet or not to meetAlthough it is clearly the aim of all the pre-action protocols to resolve matters without recourse to litigation, surprisingly it is only the construction and engineering, and professional negligence protocols that encompass any provision for the parties to meet or formally negotiate.In the former, there are several paragraphs devoted to the 'pre-action meeting'.

The latter contemplates the commencement of negotiations (to be completed within six months of the letter of acknowledgment) unless the claim is denied in its entirety.Letters of claim -- statusThe early protocols make it clear that letters of claim do not have the same status as statements of case.

Not so, however, in the new professional negligence pre-action protocol.Significantly, that says that, if a letter of claim or letter of response differs 'materially' from the relevant statement of case in any subsequent proceedings, the court may decide, in its discretion, to impose sanctions.So, what if you don't comply?The CPR enables the court to take into account compliance with the applicable protocol when giving directions and making orders as to costs.

The court will expect all parties to have complied in substance.

The party 'at fault' may be ordered to pay costs, including on an indemnity basis, or interest on damages at a higher rate (not exceeding 10% above base rate).

A claimant at fault may find himself deprived of interest on damages or be awarded interest at a lower rate than would otherwise have been ordered.Brownie points for complianceThe sanctions may be punitive but a party who complies can expect his reward.

In Infantino v MacLean, [2001] All ER (D) 137 (June) QBD 14 June, 2001, the cou rt applied its new power under CPR Part 6.9 to dispense with service generally where a claimant had fully complied with the pre-action protocol and provided the defendant with the fullest possible details of her claim but had mistakenly effected service one day late.But what if there's no applicable protocol?The court will still expect the parties in accordance with the overriding objective and the matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b) and (c) to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim and generally in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings.Are they working?There has been criticism that they favour claimants and that they have simply replaced litigation, rather than improved upon it.

Suggestions for changes have come from defendants' advisers which include an obligation on claimants' solicitors to notify a defendant as soon as they are instructed and for a claimant to pay a defendant's costs of investigating a possible claim if no proceedings are issued following a defendant's response.Nonetheless there appears to be a large body of at least anecdotal evidence that claims are now settling much sooner.Future developmentsOther pre-action protocols previously mooted include contentious probate, debt, dilapidation of property, discrimination, expert witnesses, holidays, housing disrepair, intellectual property, judicial review, police malpractice, rent arrears, reinsurance, road traffic accidents, utilities, wrongful dismissal and resolution of trust disputes.

They may never see the light of day.The latest proposal is to issue a 'general' one to cover all cases not subject to an existing protocol.

This will be issued for consultation 'soonish'.

If that goes ahead, any further protocols will be looked at much more carefully.In the meantime, I have an idea for one more: that there be a protocol for proof-reading pre-action protocols before they are issued.

If anyone has got as far as reading (and trying to decipher in the absence of the first letter of many of the words) the guidance notes in the latest protocol, they will know what I mean.