The Stationery Office has now released the ninth update to the civil procedure rules (CPR), to come into effect on Monday 13 December.Filing of Court DocumentsWhether a party could deliver a document to the court by fax was a lacuna not addressed in practice direction 5 (PD5).

That has now been remedied by an additional paragraph 5.3.

It permits the general filing of documents at court by fax; but there are significant exceptions, in particular the delivery to the court of trial bundles or skeleton arguments except in the case of unavoidable emergency.But please hear a plea from those on the receiving end of faxes.

Many are appropriate but some are not.

Often there is a merry-go-round.

Judge one is dealing with the first fax off the fax machine.

Then the second fax comes in the same a fternoon; it is a repetition of the first but the clerk cannot find the file (for reasons that will be obvious) and puts the fax before procedural judge two.The following day in comes the hard copy bearing no mention that it has been faxed in twice already; that, of course, goes before procedural judge three.

Judicial discretion being what it is, three slightly different orders are made.

They are sent out to solicitors who fax and write back...

and the merry-go-round continues.PD5 now says that where a document is filed by fax then the party filing it is not required in addition to send the court a copy by post or by DX.

If the temptation to send in a hard copy proves insuperable, at least please make it clear in the covering letter that the document has already been filed by fax.A word of warning.

PD5 para 5.3(3) says that the document is not filed at court until it is delivered by the court's fax machine, whatever time it is shown to have been transmitted from the party's machine.

So if the court fax is out of paper - and that can happen - the document is not delivered.

That could mean that the solicitor filing the document is out of time, with disastrous consequences.You cannot put the blame on Court Service for not adequately stocking up the fax machine.

PD5 para 5.3(5) states that it is the responsibility of the party to ensure that the document is delivered to the court in time.So when was the fax delivered? The document is to be marked with the date and time of delivery.

No one is going to be standing over the fax machine, so that will surely be the electronic dating by the fax machine itself.It must be clear from the above that filing by fax is not without its difficulties.

The prudent solicitor - or the hard-pressed secretary - is going to be telephoning the court to check that the fax has been safely delivered.

That involves his or her time, as well as that of the court dealing with the query.

If the document had to be filed anyway, then surely the sensible step is to do the work timeously.

Efficient working saves time and expense.Bills of SaleThere is a minor amendment in PD8B to the reference to RSC Ord.

95.

But there is also a new PD dealing with Bills of Sale.

If the person entitled to the benefit of a bill of sale consents, an order for a memorandum of satisfaction to be endorsed on the registered copy of a bill of sale can after 13 December be obtained by way of an affidavit or witness statement.

No longer will a claim form be necessary, despite what is said in RSC Ord.

95.

The new PD, which is short, explains the procedure for these consent applications.Children and PatientsPD21 para 1.8 used to say that the hearing of an application under Part 21 would take place in private, unless the court directs otherwise.

That provision now goes.But rule 39.2(3), which sets out the basic guidelines for when a hearing should be in private, still survives, and rule 39.2(3)(d) says that the hearing, or part of it, may be in private if it is necessary to protect the interests of any child or patient.

In reality, there will probably be little difference.Case managementPD26 para 10.1 used to say that para 10.2 (dealing with the transfer of defended multi track cases from feeder courts into civil trial centres) and 10.3 (case management in the multi track under Part 29) did not apply to a claim that is being dealt with at the RCJ.

From 13 December para 10.1 also does not apply to defended possession cases.This means that such cases will no longer have to be transferred to civil trial centres for either case management or trial, but can stay at the local feeder courts where they were issued.

Typical cases would include two-day disrepair counterclaims.That is good news: much more convenient for everyone.

But a loose bit of drafting may suggest that Part 29, dealing with the case management of multi track cases, does not apply to such defended possession claims; no doubt that will be revisited in due course.Civil Evidence Act 1995PD33 has been tweaked to make it clear that the Act does not apply to claims commenced before 31 January 1997 if, before 26 April 1999, directions have been given or orders were made as to the evidence to be given or the trial or hearing has begun.Representation of companiesRule 39.6(b) and PD39 para 5.3 raise a presumption that employees may represent companies.

The PD now says that the court should take into account issues such as the complexity of the case and the status and experience of the individual when deciding whether to grant such permission.

It will no longer be - if it ever was - granted in jury trials and contempt proceedings.AdmiraltyThere are amendments to PD49F paragraphs 3.1(2), 4.4 and 9.1(6)(c) relating to service of an in personam claim form or limitation claim out of the jurisdiction.

Let the specialist beware.Revenue proceedingsA new PD supplementing RSC Order 91 says that any case stated for the opinion of the High Court under s13B of the Stamp Act 1891 will be assigned to the Chancery Division.

Are there many, one asks?Reciprocal Enforcement of JudgmentsA new PD provides that notwithstanding RSC Ord.

71 r22 an application to vary or cancel registration of European Community judgments nay be made by an application notice under Part 23 supported by either a witness statement or affidavit; the rule currently prescribes the use of a claim form.

The same applies to an appeal under RSC Ord.

71 r33 (2).ExecutionA PD makes it clear that, unless the court orders otherwise, a writ of execution or a warrant of execution must not be executed on a Sunday, Good Friday or Christmas Day.

But it does not apply to an Admiralty claim in rem.And finally, InsolvencyParagraph 17.5 of the PD relating to Insolvency has been amended so that henceforth a bankruptcy registrar dealing with insolvency matters will not be able to refer applications to a single judge of the High Court.District Judge Walker sits at Wandsworth County Court