Ian Magee has an unenviable task.

As Court Service chief, he is the man charged with delivering effectively one of the biggest changes to the civil court system in living memory.

The day of reckoning is nigh.

On 26 April the changes - colloquially referred to as Woolf's World - come into force and the success or otherwise of this massive culture shift will largely be down to the Court Service.Already the prophets of doom are at work.

Speak to judges, especially those in the county courts and they shake their heads doubtfully about the ability of the Court Service to cope.

'[Court staff] are under-paid and demotivated as it is,' one seasoned county court judge said, adding: 'they simply haven't had enough training to be able to cope under Woolf'.

Solicitors are similarly pessimistic, although they tend to be even more apprehensive about how the judiciary will measure up under its new hands-on role.Mr Magee, who has been with the Court Service for just nine months, looks relatively unfazed.

He acknowledges that there are 'levels of apprehension' amongst the interested parties but says this is to be expected with a change of this magnitude.

He 'absolutely rejects' any disparagement of his staff whose approach to implementing the changes has been 'a model of hard work and dedication'.

As for the adequacy, or otherwise, of training of court staff, he explains that 6,000 have received a one-day awareness training and more detailed training, amounting to a further day, has been given to the 2,000 court officials who will be 'integrally involved' in the changes.

Not nearly enough, say the critics.Magee's task is complex, involving as it does a partnership with the other key player - the judiciary - in making Woolf's World come alive.

He refers to 'managing for success across the piece' and has set himself a target of achieving at least an 80% success in each aspect of the changes from the off.'Inevitably there will be things that folk get wrong,' he says.

But there are plans to monitor the changes post-26 Apr il fairly continuously so that any necessary refinements can be made.As with any major project, the potential for cock-up is huge.

What is Magee's worst nightmare? 'My worst nightmare has been avoided', he answers, smoothly, referring to the fact that the civil procedure changes will go ahead with piecemeal use of technology rather than the Big Bang that was initially planned.

There are many who regard this as far from satisfactory, believing that successful implementation of the changes is predicated on end to end technology.But Magee, whose last job was chief of the Information Technology Services Agency, and who can fairly be said to know his ground when it comes to major government computer projects, is completely sure that piecemeal is the only way.'I have seen the mistakes that can be made' he says with a there but for the grace of God shake of the head.

The Court Service is unlikely to be fully automated until 2000.

Meanwhile a hybrid IT-manual system will operate and on 23 April all county courts will close for a software upgrade to enable enhanced case management.Less than four weeks before D-day the Court Service has still not clarified what the position will be about compensation for wasted costs if the fixed schedules dictated for fast track and multi-track trials are not adhered to.

The Law Society and the Bar insist that the present ex gratia system of compensation for maladministration by court officials is hopelessly inadequate.

They point out that Lord Woolf himself intended that the Court Service should stump up if deadlines are missed.The issue is complicated by the fact that as long as listing remains a judicial function, it escapes the scrutiny and compensation regime of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

This must change, argues the Law Society, and it is seeking an amendment of the Access to Justice Bill to provide for compensation.

Mr Magee says compensation remains a 'live issue' but short of saying that a policy statement will be issued before 26 April, he will not be drawn.He is equally taciturn about the possibility - some legal observers say probability - of a challenge to the new court fee regime under human rights legislation.

The concept of strike-out for failure to pay fees is very vulnerable to challenge, says human rights lawyers.

Magee refuses to speculate on the prospect of a legal challenge.

He will only say that the revised court fee regime which will yield a 2.4% increase in revenue to £325 million in 1999/2000 was devised to be 'fair and consistent'.How effectively Mr Magee delivers on his tough brief will be watched from all corners.

He anticipates the attention - not least from the media.

'All the proper planning steps have been taken.

I am as confident as I can be,' he concludes.