When the final part of Lord Woolf's report on access to justice is published this summer it will propose a completely new and unified set of rules of civil procedure for the High Court and county courts.

The Chancery Working Group (CWG) was established to assist Lord Woolf and asked to consider the extent to which practice and procedure in the Chancery Division might require change to accommodate the new proposals.

It was also asked to consider whether any existing procedures -- particularly in relation to non-writ actions -- could be assimilated within the new rules.The CWG found that there were surprisingly few instances where it was necessary to suggest a departure from the general scheme envisaged by the new rules.

However, some areas did require special consideration.COMPANIESSome parts of RSC ord 102 are unnecessarily complicated because it provides for three different classes of originating process.

There is nothing inherent in these processes which cannot, in theory, be accommodated in a single claim form.The danger that a litigant might adopt the wrong procedure is not a sufficient disadvantage to displace one of Lord Woolf's primary objectives -- that there should be one simple and generally applicable claim form rather than numerous kinds of originating procedure.The expertise of the Companies Court and its staff, which ensure the smooth running of applications m ade pursuant to the Companies Acts, should be retained under the new regime.S.459 of the Companies Act 1985, the unfair prejudice remedy, may require amendment if, in future, applications by a member of a company are no longer by petition but by means of a standard claim form.

However, any such amendment could have consequences for applications made by creditors of a company which are at present governed by s.124(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which requires the application to be made by petition.There are good reasons why derivative actions and RSC ord 15, r.12A should not be carried over into the new Civil Proceedings Rules.

This is not least because the new procedures for case management envisaged by Lord Woolf should enable the court to identify at an early stage any action which is brought in contravention of the rule in Foss v Harbottle [1843] 2 Hare 461.

The rule in this case and a possible statutory cause of action to replace the common law derivative action is currently under review by the Law Commission.ACCOUNTS AND PROCEEDINGSRSC ord 43 and RSC ord 44 should be amalgamated.

Some aspects of these existing rules will need to be incorporated into the new code but much of the detailed provision -- such as RSC ord 43, rr.4 to 7 and ord 44, rr.4 to 8 -- could be dealt with by way of practice direction.PROBATEProbate actions should continue to be tried by Chancery judges.

These actions display certain unique characteristics which will necessitate special provisions in the new civil proceedings rules.

Certain aspects of RSC ord 76 will need to be preserved, for example rr.6 to 8 and 10 to 12, although other matters dealt with by the existing rules could be the subject of a new practice direction.LANDLORD AND TENANTRSC ord 97 could, under the new regime, be contained in a practice direction, save for those provisions of the rule which deal with assignment to the Chancery Division and the service of notices in proceedings pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.MORTGAGESThe existing rules, containing provisions designed to prevent judgment in default in mortgage actions and setting out matters in relation to which evidence must be provided to the court, would need to be preserved.SALE OF LAND BY COURT ORDERThe provisions of RSC ord 31, rr.1 to 4, which identify the circumstances in which, and the terms on which, the court can order the sale of land or any interest in that land, should be reflected in the new rules.

The rules relating to conveyancing counsel of the court could be adequately covered in a practice direction.ORIGINATING PROCESS OTHER THAN WRITSThe originating summons procedure must be retained under the new code.

In many ways, this procedure fits well with the central concepts behind Lord Woolf's proposed reforms: not only is it a highly flexible procedure, it also enables the court to exercise considerably greater control than is normally possible in writ actions.