The Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) released the eighth update to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) on 27 October.

It comes into effect on 10 November.FormsIn terms of forms, the N242B (notice of payment into court by order) has been deleted from the list of old pre-26 April forms retained under the CPR.

And one incorrect form reference number has been corrected (if you really must know, for N335 in table 3 to practice direction 4 (PD4) now read N334).

Apart from those two matters, the forms' revision comprises the introduction of 17 new admiralty forms.The practice directionsThe update does not amend any of the rules themselves; a revision to the CPR is not scheduled until early next year.

But the update has made minor amendments to three of the practice directions that supplement the CPR.PD26 - allocationPD26 (the all-important one dealing with the initial stages of allocation and case management) contained at paragraph 12.9(4) made erroneous references to part 45.

These have been corrected to part 46.

The particular provision in PD26 reminds the practitioner that the fixed trial costs in PD46 do not apply to cases dealt with at a disposal hearing.Imagine, say, a road traffic case with a claim for loss of use.

The claim form is issued but no defence is filed; a default judgment for damages of an amount to be decided by the court is obtained, and the court lists a ten minute 'disposal hearing' under PD26 para 12.8 for that assessment to take place.

Judgment is obtained for £1,200.

Were it not for the provisions of PD46, the successful litigator might expect fixed costs of £350.

Not bad for ten minutes of pretty straightforward advocacy.

But PD26 para 12.9(4) makes it clear that the costs of such a hearing are in the discretion of the court.

In other words, the costs will be summarily assessed having regard to the actual amount involved, the time spent, issues of proportionality and so on.PD49F - admiraltyThe update makes eight amendments to PD49F, which is the practice direction dealing with admiralty matters.

This article is not the place to labour the detail, but one amendment seems important enough to note even here.

PD49F para 10(4) used to say that any decision of the admiralty registrar on the hearing of a reference to him may be appealed to the admiralty judge by notice on form NADM22 filed within 75 days of the decision appealed against; with effect from 10 November, that period for lodging the appeal is cut down to 28 days.PD49G - arbitrationsThere is a significant amendment in PD49G dealing with arbitrations under the Arbitration Act.

At para 11.1 the reference to form 'N15A' has been corrected to '15A'.

Congratulations to whomever it was who spotted that mistake.Fast-track trial datesWhen it comes to the fast track, everyone knows rule 28.2 (2-4):(2) When it gives directions, the court will:(a) fix the trial date; or(b) fix a period, not exceeding three weeks, within which the trial is to take place.(3) The trial date or trial period will be specified in the notice of allocation.(4) The standard period between the giving of directions and the trial will be not more than 30 weeks.While the overwhelming majority, many more than was envisaged, of fast-track trials are settling, there is now a steady stream of fast-track trials coming through for final hearing.

At allocation the court will have fixed a trial window of not more than three weeks; at least three weeks' notice will also be given of the actual trial date.

That is generating a steady stream of applications to vacate the trial date.Under rule 28.4 a party - or both - must apply to the court if he/they wish to var y the trial date.

Anyone thinking that the court will nod through a consent application is in for a rude awakening.

There will have to be a hearing, on notice, even where the parties are in total agreement.

How will the court respond?The starting point must be PD28, paragraph 5.

Para 5.4(1)-(3) says that the court will not allow a failure to comply with directions to lead to the postponement of the trial unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional.Note that PD28 para 5.4(1) uses the word exceptional.

Expect the procedural judge hearing the application to adopt a tough stance.

The three week trial period will normally have been known to the parties for about seven months; even if there was a delay in the court sending out the directions order on allocation, a reading of rule 28 would confirm the position.

Arguing that there had, say, been difficulties in obtaining instructions from the client will run up against the overriding objective in CPR part 1 to deal with cases expeditiously and fairly as well as ensuring that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently.It may be possible to re-timetable a case within the three-week trial period.

That would achieve the aim of para 5.4(5), which says that where the court has no option but to adjourn, it should do so for the shortest possible time.

But that will achieve at best a three-week breathing space, and would almost certainly be obtained only at the expense of tightly drafted directions.Alternatively, the court may direct that certain issues only - the ones ready for trial - are heard but would then (under PD28 para 5.4(4)) disallow the additional costs of the subsequent trial on the remaining issues.An even more draconian sanction would be to strike out issues not ready for trial, utilising the case management power to do so in rule 3.1(k).

Other sanctions against the party who has dragged his or her feet will be to deprive that solicitor's client of the right to recover interest, or costs, or both.

The client would not be happy about that.

Nor would the solicitor, if the judge were to order the costs thrown away to be borne by the solicitor personally.If all this sounds too dire a warning, then read on in PD28.

Paragraph 5.4(6) says, in the clearest of terms, that: 'Litigants and lawyers must be in no doubt that the court will regard the postponement of a trial as an order of last resort.

The court may exercise its power to require a party as well as his legal representative to attend court at a hearing where such an order is to be sought.'So in the interesting weeks which lie ahead as fast-track trials come on for hearing, do not say that no warning had been given.

Judges are convinced that there can be no return to the old habits prior to 26 April when it was largely up to the parties to decide when their case was tried.

We are in a brave new world, particularly in the fast track.

Part 28, and the practice direction that supplements it, are clear.

The only safe way for lawyers to conduct a fast-track trial is to make sure they comply with all those directions made on allocation, and if the case cannot be settled, then at least to ensure it is ready to be tried within its trial window.