For starters: 9 JuneThis fourth revision, published by the Stationery Office on 27 May 1999 was, with commendable efficiency, available on most subscribing practitioners' desks the following day.

At first sight it is a magnus opus: seven new practice directions (PDs), amendments to another nine.

But to the average high street practitioner there is little reason for panic.

There is even some comfort in the fact that in future the rules committee hopes to effect rule changes at only six-monthly intervals, with new or amended PDs at the leisurely pace of every three months.After the frenzy of the last few weeks the future changes ought to be much more manageable.

All the changes (bar to part 34 which came into effect on 14 May) came into force on 9 June.The personal injury pre-action protocolThis has been amended so that in road traffic cases the letter of claim should give details of the hospital, if any, attended by the claimant.

Once the proposed defendant has responded to the letter of claim and confirmed the identity of the insurer, the claimant should only then give his or her national insurance number and date of birth; this information should no longer be supplied with the letter of claim.

The annex A letter of claim that forms part of the protocol has been similarly amended.Part 36 noticesThe update has introduced two new forms, an N242A notice of payment into court and an N243 notice of acceptance; both apply to part 36.

However, these forms fail to take into account the compensation recovery provisions to be found at paragraph 10 of PD36.

There, mention is made of how the part 36 payment notice should specify the gross compensation, detail the recoverable benefits and state the net payment into court.

The forms will, for the time being, have to be amended manually.For those specialist readersThere are four PDs of concern only to the specialist reader, namely:-- PD34B setting out how to calculate the fees for examiners of the court;-- a PD with the rather inelegant designation of 'Practice Direction Schedule 1 Order 53 (Application for Judicial Review)' supplementing the schedule rule (schedule 1, RSC order 53) dealing with judicial review.

It covers the mechanics of which form is required (form 86), the use of witness statements, service and so on.

Seven PDs which predated 26 April 1999 continue to apply;an equally inelegantly entitled 'PD sched 1 order 54 dealing with applications for writs of habeas corpus'.

It is reassuring to note that not all the old familiar language went out with the bathwater on 26 April.

In this instance, use form 87;a PD dealing with directors disqualification proceedings, which is sadly orphaned as it does not relate to any of the civil procedure rules themselves.

At 14 pages, with another 15 pages of forms dealing with the part 8 claim form, the acknowledgement of service and the listing questionnaire, it becomes invaluable to those who dabble in such troubled waters.And for those totally at seaPD 49F, dealing with admiralty matters, has received a complete make-over with amendments to paras 3.1(3), 3.3, 4.2(4), 4.6-4.7, 6.1, 6.10-6.11, 8.4, 9.1(7), 16-20 and, if that were not enough, 11 new forms covering another 20 pages of updated material.

The forms start with the claim (in rem) - Latin really has lived on in this update - and also cover, for example, the warrant for arrest.

In the enthusiasm to issue a claim do not forget that the local county court no longer has admiralty jurisdiction; it's off to the district registry or the Royal Courts of Justice now.Or for the technically-mindedPD49C, for the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), has revised, in inconsequential manner, the first case management conference questionnaire and the last page of the listing questionnaire used in the TCC.

How many readers know that a TCC case could be issued at the Central London County Court? Equally unclear is what that court would do if someone actually did so.And for the WelshThere is a PD on the use of the Welsh language in the civil courts in Wales.

Solicitors need to be alert to the circumstances when the court should be forewarned of the use of the Welsh language; otherwise, costs consequences can flow.Bits and piecesOpportunity has been taken with this update to correct some very minor errors that have come to light:-- Form N393 - the much-used originating application form under CCR ord 3 r 4(1) is now deleted from the list of available forms;-- The cross-referencing to forms in part 12 have been corrected;-- Extremely minor corrections to the notes to defendants in part 8 claims, to the listing questionnaire, the wording of PD8B para.

B.5, the notice of change of solicitor, and the notice of discontinuance forms have been made.

Only the eagle-eyed reader would spot them;-- PD16 at paragraph 6(3) now makes it clear that when issuing a claim for recovery of land the requirement to deal with the rateable values under section 4 of the Rent Act 1977 only relates to protected tenancies - this preserves the practice as it was prior to 26 April;-- PD21, dealing with litigation friends, is amended to clarify what a litigation friend has to serve on others.And as for being civil surrounded by such chaosOne of the shortest PDs is a new one supplementing part 33 and dealing with the Civil Evidence Act 1995.

Under the PD, the provisions of the Act apply to claims commenced before 31 January 1997 save those in which directions have been given, or orders have been made, as to the evidence to be given at the trial or hearing or where the trial or hearing began before 26 April 1999.Or if the opponent is a company employeeTo avoid getting on the wrong side of the local judge, and to earn some brownie points on the next foray into court, remember that PD39 para 5 has been substantially enlarged to require the company representative - doing the best they can to understand what is going on - to fill in an attendance slip giving the company's full name, its registered number, the representative's position and the details on which and the manner in which the representative was authorised to act for the company.

After that the representative might decide it is easier to instruct a solicitor next time.

But the presumption nowadays is that the court should hear company representatives, unless there is some particular and sufficient reason why permission to appear should be withheld.