District Judge Neil Hickman introduces next month's litigation changes which hit business tenancy solicitors When the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) invaded the litigation world, the occasional conveyancer was heard to chortle, secure in the belief that the world of Woolf was nothing to do with him.No more chortling as from 15 October 2001 when CPR part 56 and PD56 come into force and pension off the County Court Rules (CCR), order 43 and the Rules of the Supreme Court, order 97 and much of CCR, order 49 (contained in the CPR schedules).

Neglected onesPart 56 is pithily headed Landlord and Tenant Claims and Miscellaneous Provisions about Land.

It sweeps up the procedural aspects of a number of landlord and tenant and property statutes most of which are encountered only once in a blue moon.They are the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1927, 1954 (part 1), 1985 and 1987 and the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938, Chancel Repairs Act 1932, Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.And loved onesHowever, part 56 also deals with one set of statutory provisions which account for a heavy volume of court business - the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, part II.

Joint applications can be made by landlord and tenant to exclude business tenancies from the protection of the 1954 Act, or to authorise agreements to surrender.

Just one change here.

Some county courts have taken the view that the application must be made to the court for the area where the property is situated.

Many have accepted applications so long as either party to the lease is based in their area.

A few, most notoriously the Mayor's and City of London County Court, have cheerfully accepted applications from Penzance to Penrith.

It is provided by rule 56.2(4) that 'a joint claim under section 38(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 may be made in the High Court or to any county court'.

So if your local court staff return your urgent section 38(4) part 8 claim form marked 'Not our area.

Try Watford,' you will know what to say, although it is recommended that you first ensure the draft lease plan is coloured and you have sent a draft order in triplicate.New tenanciesThe major procedural reform comes with applications for new tenancies under section 24 of the 1954 Act.

Traditionally, these have been issued for a pre-trial review 'on a date to be fixed' which virtually never was.

So-called negotiations had a way of drifting on for ever.

I know of one application which had not come on for hearing after nine years.Following the CPR, renewal applications have been dealt with under part 8 and deemed allocated to the multi-track when defended.

In practice, we have almost invariably seen a succession of requests for stays, usually of two or three months at a time, allegedly while 'negotiations' continued.

Judicial attempts to impose timetables and properly manage cases have usually been resisted.Some time off from litigation so that genuine negotiations can take place will be justified.

But that time off may be sought because the landlord hopes that with delay the market will rise; the tenant is nervous about committing himself to a term of years; or the parties and their advisers are simply not getting to grips with the matter.As from 15 October all this is going to have to change.

The tenant will start his claim, whether in the High Court (very occasionally) or in the county court, using the part 8 claim form but the part 8 procedure is modified.

The landlord does not necessarily have to file an acknowledgment of service, nor need any evidence be filed by either party.Note that the claim form must be served within two months.

The ingenious argument that saved the tenant's solicitor in Chabba v Turbogame Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 77 (Jul), (2001) LTL 6 July CA - provided the claim form was served within four months, the period mentioned in rule 7.6(2)(a), the tenant could seek a retrospective extension under rule 3.1 and without being caught by rule 7.6(3) - will no longer be available.

Within 14 days after service the landlord may file and serve notice that he wishes the claim to be stayed for three months to facilitate negotiation.

Alternatively he must file and serve an acknowledgment of service.

He must do one or the other.

Under the old rules, although a landlord 'had to' file an answer within 14 days, he seldom did so in practice and sanctions were rarely imposed for default.

The acknowledgment of service takes the place of the answer and in it the landlord is required to state, among other things, whether he opposes the grant of a new tenancy and, if so, on what grounds and whether, if a new tenancy is granted, he objects to any of the tenant's proposals and if so, which of them and his counter-proposals.The three-month stay is not an excuse for anyone to go to sleep.

The remedy for narcolepsy is that either side can ask for the stay to be lifted (rule 56.3(6)) when the court will lift the stay and may give case management directions (rule 56.5(7)).

When the stay ends, by expiry or by order, the landlord must file his acknowledgment of service within 14 days if he is intending to contest the claim.Teeth outNow the Woolf bites:-- The tenant's written evidence is to be filed and served within 14 days of service of the acknowledgment of service (rule 56.3(10)).

This sounds fierce, but if the parties have been negotiating at all sensibly, they will effectively have their evidence readily available anyway.

And the tenant's original claim has to include some proposals and bear a statement of truth.

Presumably the proposals will be based on something.-- The landlord's written evidence is to be filed and served within 14 days of service of the claimant's evidence (rule 56.3(11)).

No evidence can be relied upon without permission unless it has been served in accordance with these provisions.-- When the landlord's written evidence is received or the time for receiving it has expired, the court will give case management directions (rule 56.3(12)).

Case management directions will vary from court to court, but the following will be typical:-- The landlord do by [two weeks] serve on the tenant a draft form of lease.-- The tenant do by [four weeks] serve on the landlord a copy of the landlord's draft form of lease amended to indicate the terms of the tenant's counter-proposals, if any.-- The tenant do by [six weeks] approve or re-amend the amended draft lease.-- If the outstanding points are not agreed the parties shall meet by no later than [eight weeks] to try to agree them.-- The claim be listed for a case management conference on the first open date after [10 weeks].The clear message from the CPR and the practice direction is that the parties must get on with these cases.

If they and the court's case management directions are not complied with, dire consequences may follow.

A tenant could ultimately find that his application is struck out.

A landlord could find that he cannot oppose the grant of a new tenancy.

A dilatory party may find that he is unable to challenge his opponent's valuation evidence, or his drafting.

However, if the parties do comply and remember their duties under rule 1.3 to help the court achieve the overriding objective, the result may be a pleasant surprise.

Litigators, prepare to welcome your conveyancing colleagues to the brave new world.