There are few procedural requirements that may be included in per-action protocols :

the need to disclose information or documents in relation to the cause of action; the need to correspond, and potentially meet, with the person or entity involved in the dispute; undertaking, in good faith, some form of alternative dispute resolution ; and conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling without recourse to court proceedings.

There are some benefits and possible drawbacks of the pre-action protocols:

Often the pre action protocols in place obligations on parties to disclose relevant information, facts and documents with the aim of facilitating the settlement .When settlement is not reached , the procedure is aimed to reduce the dispute issues between the parties in a way that expedites the trial process. In principle this should help reduce the need for, and costs of, any subsequent discovery of documents. Moreover, the simplification and standardization of the claims process may offer consistency for litigants, and help to promote a culture of cooperation and settlement of cases at an earlier stage. Paula Gerber and Bevan Mailman note in relation to pre-action protocols in construction disputes that: Pre-action protocols represent a philosophical shift in the way litigation is commenced and conducted ... towards a full consideration of alternative means of resolving differences. Preaction protocols do this by forcing parties to fully investigate the merits of their claims and defenses as a condition precedent to filing a law suit. Many pre action protocols are also important to encourage the parties to pursue ADR. When ADR is successful it can help save to both individuals and to the public in terms of reducing the burden on the courts. Alternatively, It is believed that action before the protocols should reduce the need for ADR
The main problem with pre- actions protocols are the costs, they require higher costs for the party in the early stages of the process .For example in complex cases where is difficult or unlikely to reach early settlement, imposes onerous requirements pre action can do nothing more than add to postpone and the cost of both sides in complying with pre-action protocol Pre-action protocols also raise access t legal issues , especially for individual parties. For example, individuals may not have the funds in accordance with relevant protocols, or may be under pressure into settlement for fear of adverse costs orders against them for non-compliance with protocols In addition, pre action protocol can open battleground for "satellite litigation,, by interlocutory application if a party has or has not complied with the relevant protocol. This becomes more likely if the parties risk of adverse costs orders ,because it is inconsistent with protocol , and has a clear impact on the courts and justice, as well as adding delay and cost of litigation. Finally, some have argued that pre-action protocols can be challenged on human rights if their effect is to interfere with the individual's right of access to courts

Pre-action protocols in the United Kingdom Specific pre-action protocols Pre-action protocols have been established in the UK u1999, after Lord Woolf Access to Justice report (the Wolf Report) in 1996, which recognized the need to facilitate the parties to engage in meaningful negotiations as soon as the possibility of litigation to identify and to ensure that as soon as possible relevant information to define their requirements and to make realistic offers to settle. The Woolf Report recommended that:

pre-action protocols should set out codes of sensible practice which parties are expected to follow when faced with the prospect of litigation; when a protocol is established for a particular area of litigation, it should be incorporated into a relevant practice guide; unreasonable failure by either party to comply with the relevant protocols should be taken into account by the court, for example in the allocation of costs or in considering any application for an extension of the timetable; and the operation of protocols should be monitored and their detailed provisions modified as far as is necessary in light of practical experience.

Subsequently, pre-action protocols related to specific types of claims have been adopted through practice directions. At the moment there are 10 pre-action protocols in the UK covering a wide range of requirements. Lets mention them: Personal injury came into force on 26. April 1999. ; Clinical dispute came into force on 26. April 1999. ; Construction and Engineering came into force on 2. October 2000. ; Defamation came into force on 2. October 2000. ; Professional Negligence came into force on 16. July 2001. ; Judicial Review came into force on 4. March 2002. ; Disease and Illness came into force on 8. December 2003. ; Hosing Disrepair 8. December 2003. ; Possession Claims Based on Rent Arrears 2. October 2006. ; Possession Claims Based on Mortgage came into force on 19. November 2008. These specific actions before the protocols are different from the imposition of mandatory procedural obligations of the parties simply act as a general guide to good practice. The Victorian Law Reform Commission notes that the longer and more detailed protocols in the UK, in a way, constituted their own procedural code. For example, claims Personal Injury Protocol identifies steps to be taken by both sides. and includes a draft template that can be

tailored to meet the circumstances of the particular claim. On the other hand pre-action protocol for Disease and Illness claims and provides that :This protocol is not a comprehensive code governing all steps in disease claims. Rather it attempts to set out a code of good practice which parties should follow. General Pre-action Protocols For actions where no specific pre-action protocol applies, the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct (the Direction) sets out the conduct a court would normally expect of prospective parties prior to the start of the proceedings. The Direction provides that, unless the circumstances make it inappropriate, the parties should:

exchange sufficient information about the matter to allow them to understand each others position and make informed decisions about settlement and how to proceed; and make appropriate attempts to resolve the matter without starting proceedings, and in particular consider the use of an appropriate form of ADR to do so.

Guide provides guidance on the nature and extent of information to be given in a letter from the applicant, as well as the response of the accused .It also predicts that the document disclosed by either party in accordance with the Direction may not be used for any purpose other than resolving the dispute unless the other party agrees in writing.
The direction is also recognized that there are some types of applications where pre- action protocol "clearly can not and should not be applied" These include but are not limited to: Application for consent order; applications where there is no other party to the application to engaged with, most of the applications for directions by trustees or other fiduciary , as well as applications where other potential party talks forward would defeat the purpose of application (for example, a request for an order to freeze assets )