Clinical Negligence Practice Directions: One year on

One year after the introduction of Practice Directions HC131 and HC132, their practical impact on clinical negligence litigation is becoming clearer. As claims move through the system, earlier preparation and shorter timelines to hearing are reshaping claim progression.

What you need to know

• HC131 and HC132 are driving earlier, structured preparation across clinical negligence proceedings entering the dedicated Clinical Negligence List.
• Applications for trial dates now require certification of readiness, completed pleadings, resolved discovery and quantified schedules of special damages.
• Mediation must be offered promptly after trial dates are fixed. This development reinforces expectations of engagement with alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
• Expert evidence, particularly on quantum, must now be addressed earlier to meet defined timelines. Early engagement helps support compliant progression toward trial dates.
• Earlier availability of hearing dates reflects the expectation that cases entering the list are already procedurally advanced and “trial ready”.

The first anniversary of Practice Directions HC131 and HC132 provides an opportunity to reflect on how they have reshaped clinical negligence case management in the High Court. The Directions came into effect on 28 April 2025. HC132 established the dedicated Clinical Negligence List, while HC131 introduced new readiness requirements for parties seeking trial dates within that list. Over the past year, their practical effect has become clearer. Claims are now expected to be procedurally advanced before entering the list. As a result, hearing dates are now becoming available sooner than was previously typical. These developments are reflected most clearly in changes to:

• Case preparation
• Expert evidence
• Mediation and discovery requirements, and
• The allocation of trial dates

1. Early case preparation and pleadings

HC131 requires that applications for trial dates reflect genuine procedural readiness rather than anticipated readiness. This is the most immediate operational impact of HC131. In practice, parties must confirm that pleadings are complete and that the key evidence is in place before seeking a trial date.

A fully quantified schedule of special damages, together with supporting vouching documentation, must be delivered in advance. In addition, all outstanding discovery requests must be addressed. The Practice Direction also includes a sample certificate of compliance confirming that readiness criteria have been met. This compliance certificate should be lodged with the Registrar. Notably, our experience indicates that these requirements apply not only to newly listed matters, but also to cases where trial dates had already been obtained prior to commencement.

Taken together, these measures indicate that only procedurally-ready cases should be assigned a trial date.

2. Expert evidence

The Directions also introduce clearer expectations regarding the timing of expert evidence, particularly related to quantum. Where a quantum report gives rise to further details of injuries or special damages, those details must be delivered within six weeks. Where those matters are to be investigated or contested, engagement of an appropriate responding expert within six weeks is expected.

This structured timeframe supports the objective that applications for trial dates should be made only once the evidential scope of the claim is sufficiently defined. While reported decisions directly interpreting HC131 and HC132 remain limited at this stage, judicial practice over the past year confirms that certification of readiness is mandatory. Expert evidence is expected to be finalised before trial dates are sought. This reduces the scope for deferring quantum evidence to later stages of proceedings. In practice, it also lowers the risk of adjournment arising from late reports.

3. Mediation and discovery requirements

HC131 also clarifies the role of mediation in the management and progression of proceedings. A party applying for a trial date must undertake to offer mediation within three weeks of the date being fixed. Where this offer is accepted, the party must also engage within a defined timeframe. The focus is on meaningful engagement rather than a defined outcome, reflecting the court’s expectation that mediation and ADR should form a routine part of proceedings.

Discovery readiness remains central to compliant trial date applications. If discovery requests are still outstanding or disclosure is incomplete, this may justify opposing or postponing an application for a trial date. In practice, this has reinforced the expectation that documentary-related issues should be resolved earlier than was often the case previously.

4. Trial date implications

One of the more noticeable developments over the past year has been the changing availability of trial dates within the Clinical Negligence List. Historically, specially fixed trial dates were often only available many months, and sometimes up to a year, in advance. This meant parties often found themselves seeking trial dates before cases were fully trial-ready, on the expectation that preparation would be completed in the intervening period. Since the introduction of HC131 and HC132, the requirement for certification of readiness has encouraged parties to seek trial dates only once cases are properly prepared. This in turn has contributed to shorter listing timeframes and increased availability within the specially fixed list.

In practical terms, applications that might previously have resulted in trial dates in 2027 may now secure dates much earlier 2026 dates.

The result has been:

• Greater emphasis on early identification of witnesses
• Timely expert engagement, and
• Completion of pleadings and discovery before listing

Trial dates are now treated as firm procedural milestones rather than provisional targets.

Conclusion

One year on, Practice Directions HC131 and HC132 have introduced a more structured approach to the progression of clinical negligence proceedings toward trial. Their combined effect can be seen in:

• Earlier particularisation of claims
• Clearer expectations around expert engagement, and
• Increased emphasis on resolving discovery early on

The availability of earlier hearing dates within the Clinical Negligence List reflects the court’s intention that cases enter the list in a genuinely “trial ready” state. While judicial interpretation will continue to develop, the overall direction of travel is clear: trial readiness is now a defined threshold that must be met before a trial date is sought. The practical focus going forward is likely to shift from awareness of these requirements to ensuring consistency in how readiness is demonstrated in practice. Early experience also suggests that these Practice Directions are contributing to:

• Shorter timeframes between trial-date applications and hearings, and
• A reduced need for adjournments where cases enter the list in a genuine “trial ready” state

Read our previous article on H131 and HC132:

Welcoming New Clinical Negligence Practice Directions

For more information and expert advice, contact a member of our Medical Law team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

People also ask