District Judge Michael Walker looks at the chunky and complex 33rd update of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998

Finally with us is the scheme for fixed recoverable costs in road traffic cases where the agreed damages, had a claim been issued, would both have been outside the small claims track and not in excess of 10,000 (see [2003] Gazette, 2 October, 35).

Note, however, that the scheme only applies to accidents occurring on or after 6 October 2003, a point tucked away in section 25A of the practice direction (PD) to parts 43 to 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), rather than being in rules 45.7 to 45.14 which are devoted to the scheme.

Under rule 45.12(1), the court may entertain a claim for costs greater than the fixed recoverable costs but only if there are exceptional circumstances making it appropriate to do so.

As the scheme operates on a swings and roundabouts basis, what would constitute 'exceptional circumstances'? Probably only those few cases that landed in the neighbouring playing field.

But at least for those playing in London, if the client also lives in London, there is the attraction of an extra 12.5% on top of the fixed recoverable costs.

For what constitutes London for these purposes, see paragraph 25A.6 of the costs PD.

Previously, there were six pre-action protocols.

With effect from 8 December 2003, there will be eight with the addition of a disease and illness protocol and a housing disrepair protocol.

Both are meaty documents - the disease and illness protocol runs to 20 pages and the disrepair protocol to 34 pages.

Evidence - EU members

The amendments to part 34 deal with witnesses, depositions and evidence for foreign courts.

A new third section introduces, with effect from 1 January 2004, a rule 34.25 dealing with the situation where the person to be examined lives elsewhere in the EU, and rule 34.26 dealing with evidence taken in this country for other EU states.

It all sounds relatively simple until one looks at the changes to PD 34 which now includes (again effective from 1 January 2004) the text of the 24-page Council Regulation 1206/2001, dealing with co-operation between EU countries in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters.

Definitely not for the faint-hearted.

One court on each circuit is the designated court competent to take evidence in this jurisdiction.

The list is at annex C to PD 34.

One of the more curious aspects of the 33rd update is the wide variety of commencement dates - 6 October 2003, 8 December 2003 and 1 January 2004.

Then there are some PDs where the changes are effective from 13 October 2003; they, in part, relate to changes necessi-tated by the implemen-tation of the Land Registration Act 2002, but there are also changes to PD 52 effectively providing for appeals to a High Court judge on the south-east circuit to be heard just at the Royal Courts of Justice (see PD 52, paragraph 8).

If that were not bad enough, changes to part 52 set out the procedure to be adopted in those few cases when the Court of Appeal or the High Court wish to reopen the final determination of an appeal or application for permission to appeal.

It is all set out in a new rule 52.17, effective from 6 October, but supple-mented by a new PD 52, paragraph 25, apparently effective from 13 October 2003.

The provisions are of very restrictive application; they only apply when it is necessary to avoid real injustice, where the circumstances are exceptional and when there is no alternative effective remedy.

If the various implementation dates were not confusing enough, there is now a new section IV of the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC), order 115 setting out the procedure for the registration in the High Court for enforcement of fines, forfeitures and reparation orders made by the International Criminal Court.

When the aim is to reduce to zero, as quickly as possible, those old Rules of the Supreme Court and of the County Court still to be found in schedules 1 and 2 to the CPR, who should query the insertion of an extra two rules to RSC, order 115? But, going back to those swings and roundabouts, the roundabouts definitely win as the 33rd update revokes RSC, order 91, what was left of the County Court Rules (CCR), order 4, CCR, order 48D and parts of CCR, order 49.

Structured settlements

Effective from 6 October are very significant changes to PD 21 and PD 40C, the latter of which has been wholly rewritten.

In any case where the future loss is likely to exceed 500,000, or in relation to any other case where the court considers it appropriate, the court will be looking very seriously at the possibility of a structured settlement.

The question must be raised at as early a stage as possible in the case management and definitely not left to the date of trial; the introduction of a new PD 29, paragraph 3A reinforces the point.

The same point applies to settlements on behalf of children or patients.

Excellent guidance is offered in the new PD 40C.

And the minor changes? Of these there are many.

Some are so insignificant as not to merit mention.

Londoners may wish to know that probate claims may be commenced at the Central London Civil Justice Centre as well as in the Chancery Division or at Chancery District Registries (rule 57.2); those practising in the Preston or Walsall County Courts might like to have a look at the new PD 5B, dealing with communication and filing of documents by e-mail.

Or perhaps the reader's interest is in the enforcement of charging orders by sale under rule 73.10? If so, henceforth note that all reasonable steps must be taken to identify the names of creditors and what they are owed before the application for the order for sale is made (see PD 73, paragraph 4.4), and also information must be given to the court as to whether any rights against the property have been registered by the owner's spouse (see PD 73, paragraph 4.3(7)).

The rest? Yes, there was quite a lot of it.

For instance, there is the transfer of cases to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (PD 30, paragraph 8) or the registration of awards and decisions in the High Court for enforcement (PD 70, paragraph 5).

But for the average practitioner the above is, in the writer's entirely subjective opinion, a sufficient snapshot.

Nevertheless, the golden rule must never be forgotten: 'If in any doubt at all as to what the rule says, look it up.'

District Judge Walker sits at Wandsworth County Court and is a contributor to Jordan's Civil Court Service