Prior to Lord Woolf's interim report, which is due out after Easter, there have been some developments with a linked theme.

In Rawlinson v Westbrook ([1995] CA TLR 25 January) Lord Justice Staughton stated that RSC ord 38 r.4 should be amended to extend the existing power to limit the number of experts to enable judges and masters to refuse to allow any expert evidence to be given at trial.

Whilst this appears a logical extension, the number of cases where it is likely to be of be nefit (both parties in this case were chartered surveyors and gave evidence) is limited.Side by side with this report is the practice direction on case management in civil litigation issued by the Lord Chief Justice (1995 TLR 25 January).

The accompanying press release concentrated on the message of cutting court delays, and as the power granted to the judiciary is not new the package had the ring of a mission statement.The practice direction makes it clear that the court intends to exercise discretion to limit discovery, the length of oral submissions, the time questioning witnesses, the issues on which it wished to be addressed, and reading aloud from documents and authorities.

Pre-trial reviews are introduced for cases estimated to take longer than ten days, and to be conducted before the trial judge wherever possible, and pre-trial checklists imported from the commercial court have to be lodged.Whilst the practice direction received general acclaim, it makes a rather ominous reference to wasted cost orders without further amplification, and the way that the power to limit discovery will be exercised is similarly vague.

The expected extension to the county court has not yet materialised, and its operation will ultimately depend on whether the judiciary, as well as litigators, are prepared to embrace the new philosophy.-- The appeal of litigationAt a time when the Lord Chancellor's Department has issued a consultation paper on leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal there have been several cases concerning appeals.

Three cases reported at the same time (Huggett v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1995 TLR 1 March) concerned applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the refusal of the High Court, the immigration appeal tribunal and a social security officer to grant leave.In each case the court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the application and delays would undoubtedly occur if appeals against refusal of leave could be entertained.In Savill v Southend Health Authority (CA 1994 TLR 28 December) it was held that when leave to appeal out of time is sought but no explanation of the delay is given, the court's discretion to extend the time cannot be exercised as there is no material on which that exercise can be based (RSC ord 58 rr.1 and 3).The principles governing the court's practice on application to expedite appeals were set out by the Master of the Rolls in Unilever plc v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd (CA 1994 TLR 28 November).

As the expedition of one hearing inevitably delays others, the threshold that a party seeking expedition has to cross is high.-- Privileged documents and 'without prejudice communications'Discovery, which is under the microscope in Lord Woolf's review, is a matter which differs according to the nature of the dispute.

In that regard it is surprising that automatic discovery against the Crown is not imposed in personal injury actions.

It is also surprising how many cases arising out of top level commercial disputes with top level litigators concern documents that have been mistakenly disclosed.In IBM Corp v Phoenix International (Computers) Ltd ([1995] 1 All E R 413) there was the complication of actions in the USA and the UK, a strict timetable and an awful lot of documents, but even so the disclosure of documents to the plaintiffs which advised on the merits of the claims and strategy must be considered something of a blunder.Not unsurprisingly the defendants applied for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from using the information and requiri ng them to return the documents on the ground that they were privileged and disclosed by a mistake, which was obvious to the 'hypothetical' reasonable solicitor.The court held that it did have an equitable jurisdiction to grant the injunction and that it should be granted in this case; although the defendant had made the mistake because discovery had not been properly conducted, the mistake was obvious to the reasonable solicitor and it was not right to deprive the defendant of the right to claim privilege.The law relating to 'without prejudice' correspondence was considered in Muller v Linsley & Mortimer (a firm) (1994 TLR 8 December).

Lord Justice Hoffmann indicated that such correspondence before settlement of an action for damages brought by the plaintiffs against a former employer was not privileged in the plaintiffs' subsequent action for negligence against former solicitors.He explained that there are two justifications for 'without prejudice' privilege.

The first is the public policy justification of encouraging parties to settle out of court.

The second is that there is an implied agreement between parties who enter into these negotiations that privilege will attach.

The correspondence in this case fell outside the scope of the rule and illustrates once more that not every communication which carries these words will be held to attract privilege.-- Who owes a duty of care?There have been several recent cases on the duty of care owed in specific situations.

District auditors employed by the Audit Commission to audit the accounts of local authorities under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 owe a statutory duty to the local authority whose accounts are being audited (West Wiltshire DC v Garland, CA 1994 TLR 5 December).Coastguards on the other hand do not owe a duty of care to mariners when exercising their ordinary functions of watching and listening, or when co-ordinating rescue activities (Skinner v Secretary of State for Transport 1995 TLR 3 January).The Crown Prosecution Service does not owe a duty to individuals who are charged with offences, but against whom no evidence is later offered (Elguzouli-Daf v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 1 All ER 833).Even if the Law Society owes a duty of care to complainants when carrying out its investigative functions, it does not include a duty to provide peace of mind of freedom from distress (Wood v Law Society CA [1995] Independent, 1 March).

However a solicitor instructed to draw a will owes a duty of care to the intended beneficiary to act with due expedition and care (White v Jones H of L [1995] TLR, 17 February).Barrett v Ministry of Defence was the subject of widespread publicity at first instance but rather less in the Court of Appeal, where his Honour Judge Phelan's decision that the deceased was 25% responsible for his own death was overturned, and a figure of 66.66% substituted (CA 1995 TLR 13 January but in the last paragraph substitute MOD for the deceased).The Ministry of Defence was not under a duty to take reasonable care to prevent an employee from drinking himself unconscious at one of their duty-free bars.

However, whilst much of the publicity centred on the lax enforcement of the Queen's regulations with regard to alcohol on the naval base and the extent of the drinking (by 11pm the deceased, who was celebrating his 30th birthday and a promotion, had drunk a minimum of four ciders and nine double bacardis), not much was heard about the wholly inadequate way that the deceased was dealt with once he became unconscious.

This section of the first instance judgment was not the subject of any argument by the MOD.-- Developments in personal injury casesStress has been in the news: pilots have warned that a proposal to increase the length of their duty time for night flights could jeopardise safety; female nurses are suffering higher suicide figures; and the chairman of British Telecom, Sir Iain Vallance, wanted to be a junior NHS doctor because 'it might be quite relaxing'.An employer's liability for failing to provide a safe place of work leading to stress and a nervous breakdown was examined in Walker v Northumberland County Council ([1994] Independent, 18 November).It was accepted that the employers had not appreciated that the plaintiff had been at risk prior to his first nervous breakdown, and it was really the period after his return to work, leading to a further breakdown and dismissal on the ground of permanent ill-health, which was decisive in the plaintiff's victory.

So far the decision has been more of interest to employment lawyers than litigators, but there will surely be more instances of this type of case in the future.Union backing for cases such as Walker is significant.

The Fire Brigades Union has been spearheading the successful challenge to the secretary of state for the home department in connection with the tariff scheme under the CICA (see CA [1995] 1 All E R 888).Solicitors will now need to press for awards to be reopened and reassessed.

The policemen at Hillsborough have lost their stress cases, but are apealing, and the law commission have first published consultation paper 137 on liability for psychiatric illness.Disclosure of medical records was considered in Hipwood v Gloucester Health Authority (Court of Appeal 1995 TLR 21 February), where it was held that where the plaintiff was claiming personal injury and loss of earnings the defendants were entitled to have GP records disclosed to their legal and medical advisors under s.53 of the County Courts Act 1984.In Hassall v Secretary of State for Social Security (CA [1994] Independent, 16 December) the court held that to avoid under-compensation under the CRU rules an unemployed person's claim for damages should include a claim for the loss of non-recoupable benefits which have been replaced.This decision was shortly before the Law Society gave evidence to the social security committee enquiring into the CRU.

The ABI's evidence indicated that insurance premiums have risen by an estimated 7 to 8% because of the scheme.Finally, as if the automatic striking out was not responsible for enough misery and claims against the SIF, the comments in Rastin on CCR ord 9 r.10 have given new life to this different type of strike out.

The insurance industry backing defendants must welcome these developments, but the knock-on effect on the profession's insurance premiums remains to be seen.