Pleadings are not called pleadings any more.

Since 26 April 1999 they have been statements of case.

This comprises everything which used to be called a pleading - for example, particulars of claim, defences, counterclaims and so on.

The general rules as to statements of case are contained in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) r 2.3.One of the major differences now is that all statements of case must be verified by a statement of truth (CPR r 22.1(4)).

A solicitor may make a statement of truth on behalf of his client but bearing in mind the possible consequences of untruthful statements (a statement made without honest belief in its truth is a contempt of court - see r.32.14)) the wisest course of action is surely to allow the client to make it.

That said, it now seems that many more classes of person than were originally contemplated may sign a statement of truth on behalf of someone else (see the CPR Part 22 PD as revised in August 1999).The claim form must contain details of the claim or be accompanied by particulars of claim (CPR r 16.4).

In general, particulars of claim are very much what they were.

Statements of case in personal injury claims which have to annex medical reports and schedules of loss, were foreshadowed by some of the CCR changes over the years.

However, two CPR changes can be noted.First, if a claim is based on a written agreement, the claim or particulars of claim must be accompanied by a copy of the agreement (CPR Part 16 PD, para 9.3).

Where the agreement was oral, the particulars must state the words used, by whom they were used and where they were said (para 9.4).Secondly, a more general point is that the particulars must contain 'a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies' (CPR r.16.4).

They should not contain pro forma particulars which might be applicable, for example, to any road traffic accident.

Accordingly, in a road traffic case, the particulars must say exactly what it is alleged the defendant did rather than reprinting paragraphs of irrelevant allegations from the word processor.Similar points apply to defences.

Pursuing the road traffic case for a moment, it will not suffice to enter a general denial and to repeat the same pro forma allegations of negligence.

An example of what might be needed is given at the end of this article.In fact, the position is more stringent with regard to defences than with particulars of claim.

The defendant must say which parts of the particulars of claim he admits and which he denies.

When he denies the claim, he must put forward his positive case and not rely on a mere denial.The rules as to amendment have changed.

Once proceedings are served, a statement of case cannot be amended except with the consent of the other party or permission of the court (see CPR r 17.1(2)).

W hat should a solicitor do if his opponent will not consent? Clearly an application to the court is necessary, but must it be on notice? Quite simply, the answer is that the court can decide this.

All the solicitor has to do is file the application to amend, with statement in support and, of course, the proposed amended statement of case, and invite the court to make the order without a hearing pursuant to CPR r.23.8(c).

The court has a duty to deal with the application without a hearing if it can (see CPR r.1.4).

Needless to say, if the opponent has given some reasons as to why the amendment should not be allowed - as opposed to just not answering letters - full details of those reasons should be supplied by the applicant.

Otherwise, the applicant would be at risk as to costs if an order was made without a hearing and subsequently set aside.Further and better particulars are no more and are now called further information (see CPR r.18.1).

The court may order any party to clarify any matter in dispute or give additional information in relation to any matter.

Any response to an order for additional information must be verified by a statement of truth (CPR r.18.1(3)).

What do you do if your opponent ignores your letter asking for additional information? The same comments as in para 8 above apply.

Seek an order and ask the court to consider the application and make the order without a hearing.

Furthermore, if you can demonstrate by the copy correspondence which you lodge that you have given the other side a reasonable opportunity to deal with the matter, why not ask for an unless order? The old case law is extinct, and the court has a positive duty to move things along.Precedent: agreement-based particularsThe claimant claims £3,300 due to the claimant from the defendant under an agreement dated (or made) on 1 April 1999.The agreement was in writing and a copy is annexed hereto.

The agreement was oral, and was made between the claimant and the defendant's manager Mr Snook in the Jolly Roger Public House, Barchester.The claimant said that he required his antique Morris Minor motor car to be repaired to such a condition as to make it roadworthy, and Mr Snook replied: 'You have come to the right people, squire - we will do it for £3,300.' In breach of the agreement...'Precedent: defence to road traffic claimThe defendant admits that he was involved in a collision with the claimant's car on 1 April 1999.

He denies that he drove into the rear of the claimant's stationary vehicle.

He says his car was stationary behind the claimant's car and that the claimant reversed without warning into the defendant's car.Precedent: request for clarificationAt paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim you state that you were unable to work between 2 January and 30 March 1999.

Yet at paragraph 13 you claim £500 for the cost of hiring a replacement vehicle for - among other purposes - travelling to work between 1 March and 25 April 1999.

Both these statements cannot be correct.

Please clarify your case.These are possibly trite examples of how the new system will work but it is hoped they demonstrate some of the essential features of the post Woolf world.