PPC1 Litigation common mistakes
PPC1 Litigation · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Issuing a claim form without checking that the chosen court has jurisdiction and that the claim is issued before the limitation period expires, treating issue and service as the same step.
Candidates conflate 'commencing' proceedings with 'notifying' the defendant, and revise limitation as a single date rather than as rules on accrual, disability, fraud/ concealment, and the difference between issue and service deadlines.
What to do instead
For every problem, write a two-column timeline: date of accrual, limitation expiry, date of issue, and the service deadline under the applicable rules. State expressly which court has territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction and cite the rule that fixes the service period. Practise two or three fact patterns where issue is in time but service is not.
Drafting pleadings that recite evidence and narrative rather than material facts, and failing to plead every element of each cause of action including the relief claimed.
Candidates write the story they would tell a client instead of the condensed legal elements, and they do not cross-check the pleading against a checklist of elements for each cause of action.
What to do instead
Before writing, list the elements of each cause of action and allocate one pleaded fact to each element. Strip out witness names, documents, and adjectives that belong in witness statements or the bundle. End with a prayer for relief that matches the remedy sought and confirm the facts support each head of relief.
Adding, substituting, or striking out parties without addressing the tests for joinder, the limitation consequences of adding a new party, and the need for the court's permission.
Candidates treat party changes as administrative corrections and overlook that adding a party after limitation can be barred, and that misjoinder and non-joinder have distinct consequences.
What to do instead
For any party issue, ask in order: is the party necessary or merely convenient, does the claim arise out of the same facts, is limitation affected by the addition, and is permission required? Write the answer as a sequence of these four questions with the rule applied to each.
Treating case management directions as background and missing the consequences of non-compliance, such as unless orders, relief from sanctions, and the effect of a failure to file a costs budget or a listing questionnaire.
Candidates learn the directions checklist but not the sanction attached to each direction, so they cannot advise on the consequence of default or on the application to set aside a sanction.
What to do instead
Build a table of each case management direction against its sanction and the test for relief. For any scenario, state the default, the automatic or discretionary consequence, the application needed, and the factors the court will weigh, then apply them to the facts rather than listing them.
Drafting an interlocutory application without identifying the jurisdictional basis, the threshold test, and the evidence needed to satisfy it, and without addressing the undertaking in damages or the balance of convenience for interim relief.
Candidates jump to the merits of the application and forget that the court first asks whether it has power to grant the order and whether the applicant has shown the required threshold.
What to do instead
Use a fixed structure for every application: power, threshold, evidence, proportionality, and any cross-undertaking or conditions. For interim injunctions, work through the threshold test, the balance of convenience, and the adequacy of damages on both sides before reaching the order sought.
Confusing the scope of standard disclosure with wider or specific disclosure, and failing to address privilege, without-prejudice material, and the consequences of non-disclosure.
Candidates learn disclosure as a single concept and do not separate the obligation to disclose documents relied on, documents that adversely affect a case, and documents that support another party's case from the narrower or wider orders the court can make.
What to do instead
Write out the categories of standard disclosure and, for each document in a scenario, decide which category it falls into. Separately flag legal advice privilege, litigation privilege, and without-prejudice communications, and state the sanction for withholding a disclosable document.
Presenting witness evidence that argues the case rather than giving first-hand factual account, and failing to prepare for cross-examination on inconsistencies between the statement and the documents.
Candidates draft statements as submissions and do not test them against the bundle, so they cannot handle impeachment or explain prior inconsistent accounts.
What to do instead
Draft witness statements in the first person, chronological, with facts the witness can personally attest to, and mark any opinion or hearsay. Before any advocacy exercise, build a contradiction grid linking each key assertion to the document or other statement that undercuts it, and prepare a short redirect for each.
In trial advocacy, failing to open with a clear case theory and a roadmap, and then asking leading questions in examination-in-chief or argumentative questions in cross-examination.
Candidates focus on content and forget the structural rules of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination, and they do not practise the discipline of one fact per question.
What to do instead
Prepare a one-paragraph case theory and a three-point roadmap before any opening. In examination-in-chief use open, non-leading questions; in cross-examination use short leading questions each directed at a single fact, and put the contrary case to the witness. Rehearse aloud with a timer.
Confusing judgments with orders, missing the time limits and routes for appeal or review, and failing to consider stay of execution and enforcement options.
Candidates treat the decision as the end of the matter and do not separate the finality of a judgment from the procedural orders that give effect to it or from the separate track for permission to appeal.
What to do instead
For every outcome, state: is it a judgment or an order, is permission to appeal required, what is the deadline, which court hears the appeal, and does enforcement or a stay need to be addressed. Draw a one-page decision tree and apply it to past scenarios.
Handling costs and funding mechanically, ignoring the costs rules that follow the event, the bases of assessment, and the professional conduct duties around conflicts, confidentiality, and undertakings.
Candidates treat costs as arithmetic and professional conduct as a separate topic, so they miss that costs consequences flow from conduct and that a solicitor's undertakings and conflict checks affect the litigation strategy.
What to do instead
For each scenario, state who pays, on what basis, and which conduct factors could displace the default. Separately run a conflict and confidentiality check and identify any undertaking given. Revise the funding options and the costs consequences of each before choosing a strategy.
Treating alternative dispute resolution as a box to tick rather than a strategic choice, and failing to advise on the costs consequences of refusing to mediate or on the enforceability of a settlement reached.
Candidates learn the types of ADR but not when each is suitable, what a refusal to engage costs, or how a settlement is recorded so it can be enforced.
What to do instead
For each dispute, compare litigation, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation on cost, time, confidentiality, expertise, and enforceability, and recommend one with reasons. Address the costs risk of an unreasonable refusal to mediate and state how the settlement will be documented and enforced.