What is effective when?All the changes introduced by the Amendment Rules SI 2000/2092 come into force on 2 October 2000.

There is also a new practice direction for Judicial Review and numerous amendments to the existing practice directions contained in the 18th monthly update from the Stationery Office: they will be the subject of a further article.Home courtImagine the following.

Claimant lives in Carlisle.

Defendant -- an individual -- lives in Preston.

There is a car accident and a claim is lodged at Carlisle County Court to recover the claimant's repair outlay.

The defendant's insurers' solicitor, practising in the West End, files a defence giving his office address as that for service.

The case is automatically transferred to Central London County Court.

That's fine for the solicitor, but a trifle inconvenient for the parties if the case comes on for trial.

But after 2 October the defendant's home court is defined as where he resides or carries on business, so the case would in future be transferred automatically to Preston.

In the High Court, 'home court' will in future either be the district registry where the defendant resides or carries on business, or if there is no such district registry then the Royal Courts of Justice.Human rightsThe CPR have now been updated to cater for the legislative changes in the Human Rights Act 1998:-- A claim under section 7(1)(a) of the Act that a judicial act is incompatible with a Convention right may only be brought in the High Court (although the much easier route may be to appeal in the time-honoured way) and notice has to be given to the Crown before any damages can be awarded for the judicial act;-- Any other claim under section 7(1)(a) may be brought in any court;-- Cases where the court is to be invited to make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 should either be brought in or will be transferred to the High Court; and-- Before the High Court makes a declaration of incompatibility under section 4, at least 21 days' notice has to have been given to the Crown and the Minister, or whoever, joined as a partyAll heavy stuff.

And if you are thinking of bringing a claim for damages for breach of article 5 Convention rights (the right to liberty and security) then read the rules about evidence in the new rule 33.9 before you do so.

A second court hearing the evidence is not required to adopt the findings of the earlier court.Contentious probate proceedingsEver thought of applying for Part 24 summary judgment in a contentious probate case?After 2 October it will be possible to do this.

Will this open the floodgates, or will it be a trickle? Only time will tell.Trial with a juryGilbert and Sullivan aficionados will know of trials by jury, but for the past 18 months the CPR have been silent about them.

Not any longer.A new rule 26.11 says that any application for a case to be tried with a jury must be made within 28 days of service of the defence.Appeals in small claim casesAs has been much heralded, rules 27.12 and 27.13 have been revoked.

This means that appeals in small claim cases filed after 2 October (but not those filed beforehand) will be subject to exactly the same rules and procedures as apply und er Part 52 to all other appeals.Under Part 52 the grounds for appeal are that the court below either got it wrong or the decision was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.Gone will be the ability of the circuit judge to dismiss the appeal without a hearing: that was felt to be incompatible with the right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act.Part 36 offersAt the moment a Part 36 offer may, with the court's permission, be withdrawn.

But a reappraisal of a case might incline a party to reduce -- not withdraw -- his Part 36 offer.

With the court's permission, this will be possible after 2 October.The Rules Committee has also taken the opportunity to sort out rule 36.21(6).

In cases such as All-in-One Design v Motcomb [2000] All ER (D) 180 TACC some judges have on the basis of this rule been awarding enhanced interest under Part 36 on top of ordinary interest rather than instead of it.

This is not what was intended and the rule has been amended to make it clear that the total rate of interest may not exceed 10% over base rate.Forget to turn up?Rule 39.3(4) did not sit easily with the rest of that rule.

The words 'for an order to restore proceedings' have now been omitted.

If you or your client failed to attend a hearing or trial and you either want to restore the proceedings or have the order which has been made set aside, your application must be supported by evidence.Judicial ReviewThe old Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) Order 53 -- applications for judicial review -- has been revoked as from 2 October and replaced by a new Part 5.

There is also to be a practice direction to supplement the rule.

Both will be the subject of a subsequent article.But where a person has filed an application for permission to make an application for judicial review before 2 October, RSC Order 53 shall apply as if it had not been revoked.Alongside the revocation of RSC Order 53 go our old friends mandamus, certiorari and prohibition: the expressions 'mandatory order', 'quashing order' and 'prohibiting order' will take some getting used to.

Also revoked is RSC Order 57, which related to divisional court and other proceedings.

There is some minor tidying-up of the rules as a consequence.HousingSince 28 February 1997 all assured tenancies have been assured shorthold tenancies unless the parties expressly intended to create an assured tenancy.

Previously, the failure to serve a valid notice under section 20 of the Housing Act 1988 would have created an assured tenancy by mistake.

There are two significant changes introduced by the Amendment (No 4) Rules:-- The accelerated possession procedure under County Court Rules (CCR) Order 49 will in future only apply to assured shorthold tenancies, and not to assured tenancies as CCR Order 49 rule 6 is revoked, and;-- An assured shorthold tenant faced with an application for possession under the accelerated possession procedure has always been able to apply on the ground of exceptional hardship to postpone the date of repossession.

Under a new CCR Order 49 rule 6A(17) the district judge will now direct that the issue be listed for hearing: that hearing must be held before the date on which possession is to be given up.

The Human Rights Act has led to this change.

Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 still says that the court cannot postpone the repossession to a date more than 42 days after the date of the order.

If this rule change means that most accelerated possession applications have to be listed for hearing, will it spell the demise of the accelerated proc edure?