This, the 20th update, will almost certainly prove to be the last this year - possibly because there is not much change coming through at the moment, or possibly because the rules committee, the Lord Chancellor's Department and others are hearing the justified cries from practitioners for fewer updates.

Whatever the reason, the sighs of relief are deafening.The Lord Chancellor's Department Web site (www.open.gov.uk/lcd) does not say when the next update is due.

It merely says: 'The 21st update will probably be published early in the New Year .

.

.

We'll post the date as soon as it is available.'However, do not drop your guard.

There are new rules being drafted on housing procedure and landlord and tenant cases.

The enforcement rules might be improved so far as is possible without primary legislation, for which there is currently no parliamentary slot.

Other rules or practice directions might need amendment in the light of experience.

We possibly have not seen the end to the changes to the costs rules and the costs practice direction.So what has changed?Vari ous PDs are amended.

But the initial rush of enthusiasm soon pales.

With PD24 (summary disposal of claims), PD36 (offers to settle) and PD49 (contentious probate proceedings) the amendments are just to correct erroneous cross-references.But that still leaves PD42 (change of solicitor).

What about that? Para 1.2, it says in the Blue Book note, has been amended.

Expert assistance had to be sought from a colleague to spot the amendment, as it was just the debatable insertion of the indefinite article 'a' in a sentence, which now reads '.

.

.

the certificate of a LSC funded client' (sic).Welsh devolutionThe Welsh language version of this PD dealing with devolution issues in Wales has been amended but - so far as the writer can gauge - only so far as is necessary to bring the PD into line with the English version already available.

The changes relate just to paras 2.2, 10.3(4) and 14.1-14.4.

Apologies are tendered to all those who would have preferred to see this news announced in Welsh.AppealsLest readers will have moved on to other pages by now out of abject boredom, PD52 (appeals) has ridden yet again to the rescue.

It retains its record of having been amended in every monthly update since its promulgation.At the moment PD52 para 7.6 requires the respondent to an appeal to provide a skeleton argument for the court where he proposes to address arguments to the court.

The respondent's skeleton argument, at the very latest, must be lodged and served no later than 21 days after the respondent receives the appellant's skeleton argument.That is fine if an appeal in a commercial case is going to occupy the Court of Appeal all week.

But what of the unrepresented litigant in person being appealed in a small claims case from the district judge to the circuit judge? It never was intended to impose the same regime on him or her as applies in fast track or multi track cases.

So a new PD52 para 7.7 says that, where the appeal relates to a claim allocated to the small claims track, the respondent may provide a skeleton argument but is not required to do so.When should the respondent's solicitor provide a skeleton argument? Obviously only if it is going to assist the court.

The cost of doing so has to be balanced against the value of the claim, which by definition will be under £5,000.

Common sense is the order of the day.The 20th update comes into force on 14 November 2000.

Pending that date courts have been advised that the present requirement to serve a respondent's notice in the small claims track should be ignored.The Nelsonian approachWhilst not affected by the 20th update, PD52 para 5.8A is worthy of a reminder as its provisions are often being overlooked and costs unnecessarily incurred.

Those costs might not be recoverable from a losing respondent.

The paragraph applies only to appeals in the small claims track.

When the appellant lodges his notice of appeal the only additional documents required of him are:-- A sealed copy of the order being appealed;-- Any order giving or refusing permission to appeal, together with a copy of the reasons for that decision, and;-- A suitable record of the reasons for the judgment of the lower court.That last provision does not mean a costly transcript has to be prepared.

Where the legal representative took a note of the judgment then such a note, agreed with the other side, will suffice.If all this is new, have another look at District Judge Patricia Pearl's article headed 'Small claims, big changes' in last week's issue (see [2000] Gazette, 2 November, 47).

That concludes t he 20th update!OK, so where can we all do better?Many readers may be unaware that representatives of the Association of District Judges, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers meet at six-monthly intervals to discuss how the operation of the Civil Procedure Rules might be improved.At a recent meeting numerous points were made, and some are worthy of mention here:-- Courts still occasionally draw up orders after the relevant dates have passed.

This should not happen, and sorting matters out afterwards can be tiresome.

Wherever possible the answer is for the applicant to draw up his own order and to present it to the court for sealing.-- Once in a while courts also miss trial windows or, more commonly, fix a trial date which is inconvenient to the parties, or the expert witnesses they have permission to call.

A possible answer worthy of further consideration is for a provisional trial date to be fixed once the listing questionnaires are filed which could be achieved by discussion (either direct or over the telephone) with the court's listing manager.

Final listing directions could then be given by the district judge who would know of the date pencilled in the diary.-- Draft directions from the parties were always welcome, even in the fast track.

But it is no good just drafting any old directions.

In the fast track, bear in mind the standard directions in the appendix to PD28: in the multi track, do remember to include provision for a future judicial consideration of the case, whether that means a pre-trial review, or a trial window or whatever.

Draft directions are still submitted which contain references to certificates of readiness or which leave the date for future judicial consideration totally up in the air.-- Telephone hearings are now working very well (on the whole) but contested interim applications are often not suitable for telephone hearings, and should not be disguised as case management conferences.

Furthermore, not all courts have yet received the right equipment to be able to conduct a telephone hearing.

The district judge cannot be put in the role of a go-between, which happens in some judges' rooms where there is no conference telephone facility but one party has attended in person and the opponent is on the other end of a standard telephone.