With one exception the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2010, and related amendments to the CPR ­practice directions (PDs) in the 53rd update, come into force on 1 October 2010. Perhaps the most important changes are those which implement three recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s (pictured) report on civil costs.

PD51E gives effect to one of the Jackson proposals in the form of a pilot scheme, confined to Leeds, York and Scarborough. Following evaluation, it is highly probable that it will be extended to all county courts.

The pilot applies to all detailed assessment proceedings commenced on or after 1 October in which the base costs claimed are £25,000 or less. Within six weeks such bills will be provisionally assessed (no party can attend). Within 21 days of receipt of notice of the provisional assessment either party can request an oral hearing. However, note the costs sanction.

Generally, costs of the oral hearing will be awarded to a paying party if the amount allowed is reduced to not more than 80% of the provisionally assessed sum (or, if the hearing was requested by the receiving party only, the amount allowed is not increased to at least 120% of the provisional assessment).

Costs of the hearing will generally be awarded to a receiving party if the amount allowed is increased to at least 120% of the provisional assessment (or, if the hearing was requested by the paying party only, the amount allowed is reduced to not more than 80% of the provisionally assessed sum).

The scheme should result not only in quicker assessments, but also in a saving of time and expense for litigants, practitioners and the courts. Successful parties should not exaggerate their costs and payers should not make silly offers.

A new section V is added to part 63, completely rewriting the rules for the Patents County Court. The new rules are designed to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to bring intellectual property claims at a modest cost, and it is in the new costs rules, in section VII of part 45, that the second Jackson recommendation is implemented. The costs rules are worth noting as they may provide a precedent which could be extended to other areas of work.

The new section VII in part 45 is called ‘Scale costs for claims in a Patents County Court’. However, the amended costs PD (in a new section 25C) does not contain fixed costs, but maximum costs that can be awarded for each stage of litigation. The sums are not ungenerous (for example, up to £15,000 for ‘preparing for and attending trial and judgment’) but, regardless of the maximum that can be awarded for each stage, rule 45.42 provides for an overall maximum of £50,000 on the final determination of a claim in relation to liability. This is not, and is not intended to be, an indemnity. So a litigant in the Patents County Court knows that the maximum costs to be paid to the other side if the claim is lost is limited in this way.

The limit on the amount or value of a claim in proceedings in the Patents County Court is set by an Order in Council made under section 288 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is intended for claims of not more than £500,000.Rule 31.4 contains a broad definition of ‘document’, which extends to electronic documents. Of course, these days many documents exist only in electronic form, but the extent of the obligation to disclose these has not always been appreciated by litigants and their advisers. Amendments to part 31 and, in particular, the new PD31B (Disclosure of Electronic Documents) address this. The PD encourages and assists parties to reach agreement in relation to the disclosure of electronic documents in a proportionate and cost-effective manner. The new PD applies to all proceedings started on or after 1 October 2010 in cases that are, or are likely to be, allocated to the multi-track. It is a detailed PD which will require close study. In some cases the parties will find it helpful to exchange the new electronic documents questionnaire.

The PD contains extensive definitions and requires parties and their legal advisers to apply the following general principles:The Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 allows an unauthorised tenant of a mortgagor to apply to the court to suspend either a possession order or a warrant of possession for up to two months. A mortgagee must give a prescribed notice to the ‘tenant/occupier’ of the property before applying for a warrant of possession. Part 55 and rule 17 of the CCR Order 26 in schedule 2 to the CPR are amended to give effect to this change in the law.

  • Electronic documents should be managed efficiently to minimise the cost incurred;
  • Technology should be used to ensure that document management activities are undertaken efficiently and effectively;
  • Disclosure should be given in a manner which gives effect to the overriding objective;
  • Electronic documents should generally be made available for inspection in a form which allows the party receiving the documents the same ability to access, search, review and display the documents as the party giving ­disclosure;
  • Disclosure of electronic documents which are of no relevance to the proceedings may place an excessive burden in time and cost on the party to whom disclosure is given.

There are amendments to part 77 of RSC Order 115 which will be of interest to criminal practitioners.

A new section VIII is inserted into part 65 to include provisions for ‘gang injunctions’ under part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. However, this is the exception that does not come into force on 1 October. The new rules will come into force ‘on the date on which part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 comes into force’.

PD62 is amended by substituting new paragraphs 12.1 to 12.6. These relate to ‘applications for permission to appeal’. The aim is to clarify and simplify the documents required on such applications. For example, 12.2 provides that the skeleton argument:Both the Automatic Orders Pilot Scheme (PD51B) and the Defamation Proceedings Costs Management Scheme (PD51D) are extended to 31 March 2011.

  • must be printed in 12-point font with one-and-a-half line spacing;
  • should not exceed 15 pages in length; and
  • must contain an estimate of how long the court is likely to need to deal with the application on the papers.

Finally, it is worth noting that the master of the rolls has amended the Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes to give effect to another Jackson recommendation. Paragraph 3.15 is amended by adding at the end that ‘any letter of claim sent to an NHS Trust or Independent Sector Treatment Centre should be copied to the National Health Service Litigation Authority’. The period of ‘four months’ is substituted for ‘three months’ in paragraph 3.25.

District Judge Robert Hill sits at Leeds, York and Scarborough county courts. He is also a regional costs judge and a member of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee