LANDLORD FEARS

I was troubled to read the article by district judge Neil Hickman on the new part 56 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (see [2001] Gazette, 27 September, 41).

There are two reasons for this concern.First, in providing advice about how part 56 will work in practice, the district judge has overlooked the late amendment to the practice direction (PD 56 paragraph 3.8) that deals with the evidence which has to be produced by both parties at the outset of the proceedings.

The practice direction makes it clear that the only evidence which is required '...is that supporting the parties' positions so that the court can identify the issues and give appropriate directions...' This amendment to the part 56 regime is important to practitioners since it overcomes the absurd notion that a tenant can produce all of its evidence without knowing what the landlord's case may be, and in relation to rental values some months in the future.Secondly, the tone of the district judge's article is injudicious.

One of Lord Woolf's objectives was to reduce the cost of litigation, and this is embodied as part of overriding objectives.

The approach which District Judge Hickman advocates will have precisely the opposite effect and may prove damaging in many cases to the long-term relationships between landlord and tenant.

Matthew Marsh, head of property litigation, Collyer-Bristow, London