Since the revision of the County Court Rules and the increase of the jurisdiction in 1991, arbitration has become an important part of professional life.

County court arbitration is a good system provided it is used aright.

We ought to be proud of it, and strive to improve it in every possible way.

Nowhere else in the world can a litigant in person take on, for example, the state, or a mammoth corporation or insurance combine for such a reasonable initial fee with normally no danger of a costs award against him or her if he or she does not bring him or herself within the scope of ord 19, r.6 (now r.4).Yet there is no really clear method - excepting those disputes which run under the chartered institute's rules - still less any agreed procedure, which all can try to follow in presenting a case.

The unsatisfactory answer to this which one generally hears is that each district judge should decide on his or her own procedure for settling disputes.

'Well,' it will be said, 'let's hear what you do!'Assuming both sides have turned up at court, and even in some cases where only one side has turned up, the first things from where I sit are the documents.

These are often incomplete and unsatisfactory.

It helps to send the court usher to fetch copies of invoices, estimates etc which, I have found over nine years of arbitration on this circuit, are often not provided.In fact it is useful to prepare a simple bundle of documents - agreed, if possible.

To go still further, I am certain that no district judge - we are all over-worked and under pressure these days - will ever refuse to read through such a bundle before the hearing starts.

Care in the preparation will very often generate its own dividends and handing it in for the judge to read as early as possible, even a few days before, is a good idea.In this connection, a word about vague counterclaims.

Many times over the last two years I have had a purpor ted counterclaim which is simply a glorified claim for expenses incurred in defending the case.

Worse still is the counterclaim for money not yet expended but loosely estimated, usually at a round figure clutched out of thin air, such as £300 or £1000.If looked at more closely, it is just enough to exceed the plaintiff's claim.

I never hesitate to ball out any litigant who tries to pull the wool over the court's eyes in this way, and insist that he or she can only claim what he or she has actually expended, or an accurate expert estimate of what he or she will be likely to incur, eg in putting right faulty building work.It is worth noting the behaviour of some litigants, many of whom simply want their 'day in court' and sometimes bring several 'witnesses' - often in the shape of family members and/or business associates - to impress either the court or the other side.

It pays to discourage this sort of attitude.

I always tell my usher that I do not want any witnesses trooping into the chambers until they are wanted - only the parties and their representatives, if any, come in at the outset.

In other words, I adopt standard magisterial procedure on a 'not guilty' plea viz witnesses out of court.It is amazing how often in these civil disputes this procedure ensures that we quickly get the real truth, and I can think of no more important a type of case where this should be adopted than the small runner viz motor collision.

More and more of these come to the Midland and Oxford courts now that the jurisdiction is higher, and embraces where it did not before, for example, the average bump in the high street or on a roundabout, because of the cost of repairs.Incidentally, an agreed sketch plan ought to be in that bundle of documents, together with some reasonable photographs which may - the judge should enquire as to this - have been taken long after the collision and even misrepresent in several material particulars the true situation.Site inspections appear to have been discouraged because of, it is said, the danger of the judge becoming an expert witness.

This is unworthy of our professional training and discipline.

One ought to hold a site inspection before, during or after the hearing.

All one has to do as judge is to inspect the site and, as in a planning appeal inspection, firmly button the mouths of any party or representative who seeks to use the opportunity to bend the judge's ear or try to impress him or her unfairly or unlawfully.

Ten minutes' site inspection is often worth an hour of plans, photographs or written or verbal evidence.Opinions vary about swearing witnesses.

My usual formula which, I believe, quite a few agree with, is that it is generally unnecessary in arbitration to do this with the essentially more informal nature of arbitration procedure.

An exception may well be where experts differ - I would support any litigant who wanted, for instance, a doctor's or an engineer's evidence at an arbitration to be on oath.Hearsay can be allowed, but should be discouraged when it arises, because it can be potentially, and sometimes even highly, dangerous.

However, not all readers will agree with that observation.Regarding hearing procedure: plaintiff can address me first, if he or she wishes, then call his or her evidence.

This is cross-examined and re-examined, just as in open court.

The defendant then does the same - first address, if he or she wants, followed by evidence, then both litigants can address again - defendant first, and plaintiff finishes.

This seems to be accepted as fair.It depends so much on the type of case, but it is useful, beneficial and acceptable to the parties, as a general rule, to reserve the award in technically complicated cases.

It may either be given at a later date, or be prepared in writing and sent by post.

This can particularly apply where there are intricate conditions of sale or a conflict between different conditions of sale.There have been countless examples lately of arbitration cases arising out of unpaid professional fees - generally veterinary surgeons, accountants, architects and solicitors.

These demand the most exacting care because, in so many cases, defending such a claim is a way of getting out of paying or postponing the evil day when the defendant client has to pay.

One must be on the alert for such tacticsWith solicitors' fees I always ask - and generally get the same unsatisfactory answer - if the bill sent to the client had the usual notice about his or her rights to have a bill taxed in court or, under the Solicitors' Remuneration Order, to have a certificate of reasonableness from the Law Society endorsed upon it.

Many times I have been told that this notice was printed on the back of the bill and has not come out on the copy supplied to the court.

This is usually followed by a statement from the solicitor or his or her clerk that 'Oh yes, sir, all our bills have it printed on them,' without any attempt to satisfy the judge that it is so.

A simple precaution is for the solicitor to take a top copy print of his or her normal bill to court.

This should quickly satisfy the judge and give him or her possibly greater confidence in what he or she is being told by the plaintiffs.Preliminary hearings often come about because a court official has asked the district judge to consider a case which possibly appears tricky, for example, the plaintiff has sued the wrong party.

This can be useful in eliminating misconceived claims.

Litigants can, of course, ask for this themselves, and in these days of heavily overworked courts I think it will be found that a request for a preliminary review with, say, a 20 minute appointment, will be favourably received by the judge as a commendable step towards efficiency.It is possible to be more relaxed about adjournments.

Provided the parties behave reasonably to each other and to the court and do not spring it on me at the last minute, I will grant the same.

Indeed, it often helps to get the parties into a settling mood.

Besides which, there is always plenty of signing and ex parte work to do, so there is no need to fear the wrath of the judge on finding one of his or her cases non-effective.Whilst on that topic, the technique of having two, three or even four district judges sitting 'back-to-back' to deal with arbitrations should, to my mind, be used much more.

We are fortunate in some of the courts where I habitually sit that this is now a recognised procedure.With the best will in the world, many time estimates for arbitrations are inaccurate.

The back-to-back or block arbitration system is an effective way of preventing any gross court waste of time or inconvenience, either because the case actually over-runs or because it manifestly appears at the outset that it cannot be heard in the one day, ie where there is only one district judge hearing arbitrations.

In addition, the parties are warned that their case has been listed for block arbitration, which means - and they are told this - that it may not necessarily be reached that day.It is essential to add that the court officials are usually most conscientious about what types of case they list for block arbitration and, for instance, a case with a valuer's or expert's evidence will generally not be so listed, but put on at a fixed time to which the district judges will generally do their utmost to keep.