Application noticeA new term for a new regime.

It is introduced by part 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 which provides a procedure for the broadest possible range of applications and reduces the number of special type of case.Timetable enforcement: the quicker stepIf the defendant delays, what happens now? The plaintiff issues an application for an 'unless order'.

Six weeks delay may follow as the appointment is awaited.

Agreed terms are faxed at the last minute.

If the order relates to discovery of documents, it may provide for a strike out of the defence in default of compliance, although some courts will only add a strike out sanction on a second application.

If the failure is to exchange witness statements, the only sanction under the present rules is to debar the defendant calling witnesses at the trial without the trial judge's leave.There will be other possibilities after 26 April 1999.

An application to enforce the timetable should be made as soon as possible.

The court willing, an order may be made without service of the application and without a hearing.

The part 23 practice direction authorises such an order where this best furthers the over-riding objective.

And the court must further the over-riding objective by actively managing cases (part 1.4).

Active case management includes:-- fixing timetables;-- dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend the court; and-- ensuring the case proceeds quickly and efficiently.What Lord Woolf said was 'The onus should be on the party in default to seek relief from a sanction, not on the other party to apply to enforce the order.'Take noticeThe form of application notice - the N244 - caters for all that solicitors need.

It incorporates particulars of the order sought (do not simply ask the court to give directions), the evidence relied on in support and the statement of truth and acts as a checklist.

It suggests that a draft order be attached which will save the court having to reprocess it.

In the draft the deadline date and the time of day for compliance should be set out.

That is what part 2.9 requires.

As to any evidence (and we no longer talk of affidavit) in support, where that is required or is offered, it may now be included in the application notice but otherwise must be filed with the application and served promptly.

Ask the court to give directions which can be served with the application notice providing for the serve-by date for any evidence in answer.

As an alternative to the N244, you may make a simple application by letter eg, to enforce a timetable.Encourage the district judge to make the order of the court's initiative under the part 3 case management powers, without hearing the parties or giving them the opportunity to make representations.Unless courts act quickly to enforce their directions, the timetables will become meaningless.

If the Master or district judge disagrees the court will give a hearing date in the usual way.Orders with a punchAsk for a sanction in the order.

Over to Lord Woolf again.

In the case of a failure it should be possible for the innocent party to apply for an order ex parte (this was 1996) debarring the other party from continuing with the case.

And, 'All direction orders should include an automatic sanction for non-compliance'.

We should become used to seeing sanctions included first time round in the original order.

Provided that the time for performance of the directions is realistic, why should any order not contain sanctions? Sanctions are designed to prevent, not punish non-compliance with the timetable.

Where an order is made without notice, part 23 includes a requirement that you would expect.

The court must serve a copy of the application and any supporting evidence.

The order must include notice of the respondent's right to ask the court, within seven days after service, to reconsider it.Although the seven days can be extended, if justice requires it, the shortness of the objection period emphasises that timetables are binding and deadlines not merely pious hopes.

There is a part 3 safety net.

The court should, of its own initiative, rectify any error of procedure.BeargardensCourt listing arrangements should change.

Applications to extend a date or objections to an order made without notice must be listed quickly, to maintain the timetable.

That means the following week; otherwise, the delaying party achieves more time through list ing delays, as happens now.

The minimum period of notice of an application or objections hearing is three clear days.

Courts are likely to combine a Beargarden list of short urgent hearings with time for district judges to tackle a heavy volume of new procedure boxwork consisting of allocation and listing directions and applications for orders without notice.Cross off?Part 1 requires the court to be pro-active.

Out goes the old requirement to amend a notice to include a further application or to serve notice of a cross application.

If it is possible to do so the court will deal with any further application at the hearing, even one made orally.Anticipate that at any hearing the court may wish to review the conduct of the claim as a whole and give any necessary case management directions.

Applications can be heard by telephone.

The part 23 practice direction tells you how to do it, and how to use that video link you were given for Christmas.Cash on deliveryWhere an order for costs in any event is made on the hearing of an application, the norm will be for those costs to be summarily assessed by the court with payment of them being required within 14 days unless the recipient party is legally aided.

But the awaited costs practice direction is likely to permit summary assessment if the paying party is legally aided although this would be subject to assessment under s.17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

The interim costs practice direction which encourages summary assessment on short - no longer than one day - interlocutory applications (see [1999] Gazette 10 February, 38/40) came into force on 1 March 1999.Don't stop the clock - appealsFor the time being interlocutory appeals will continue under the old rules.

The recommendations made in the Bowman Report are included in the Access to Justice Bill.

It is expected that the awaited appeals practice direction will provide for the designated civil judge in the court concerned to take any appeal from a district judge's procedural order on an application with a view to consistency of approach being established.To maintain the timetable, the period for filing the notice of appeal is likely to be shorter than at present.

The notice must set out the grounds of appeal.

The appeal may be on paper only unless the appeal judge directs otherwise.

In normal circumstances there will be only one appeal.

A High Court Judge will hear an appeal from a master or a Circuit Judge.