The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2000 have now been published as SI 2000/221.

At 32 pages, what are they all about? In brief:-- a whole raft of minor amendments, bringing some of the schedule rules into the main body of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR);-- several errors in the earlier rules are corrected;-- there are new rules for service out of the jurisdiction and for security for costs;-- a new part 19 introduces new rules for parties and group litigation orders;-- a fascinating part II to part 40 (judgments and orders) deals with "sale of land etc and conveyancing counsel";-- an entirely new part 52 deals comprehensively with appeals;-- a new, albeit short, part 53 deals with defamation claims, accompanied by consequent revocations of RSC order 82 and of paragraphs 8 and 15 of PD16.Dates for implementationBar the defamation provisions, which came into force on 28 February, all the remainder of the new rules come into effect on 2 M ay 2000.The practice directions supplementing the new rules on group litigation orders and on appeals are still under consideration.There are further changes in the pipeline: the provisions for the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums require amendment to both the CPR and the costs practice directions.

Depending on the results of a Lord Chancellor's Department consultation exercise there may also be an amendment to part 27 (the small claims track) to repeal rules 27.12 and 27.13, so that appeals in that track are on the same lines as all other appeals.

It would be boring if we did not live in interesting times.DefamationLet's start with a brief look at this, as the amendments came into force on 28 February when the residue of the Defamation Act 1996 came into force (ss 2 to 4, 7 and 8 to 11).

An earlier Benchmarks article (see [2000] Gazette, 10 February, 42) looked at the new PD53.

That introduced provisions dealing with:-- the content of statements of case;-- the procedures under which the court may deal with an offer of amends or may rule on the meaning of a statement;-- summary disposal under s.8 of the 1996 Act;-- statements in open court before or after a party accepts a part 36 offer or part 36 payment in a libel or slander claim (note that this facility has been withdrawn for cases of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment);-- and a transitional provision relating to s.4 of the Defamation Act 1952;Rule 53.2 deals with the procedure for summary disposal of claims under the Defamation Act 1996.

Rules 53.2(4) and (5) enable the judge, when hearing a summary disposal application, to direct the defendant to elect whether or not to make an offer to make amends under section 2 of the Act and to set a timetable in which the election is to be made.Rule 53.3 is self-explanatory: unless the court otherwise orders, a party will not be required to provide further information about the identity of the defendant's sources of information.Amendments in detailSo what are the minor amendments to the CPR? All of them only come into force on 2 May -- the really minor amendments, changing 'the' for 'any', and so on, have been omitted.Rule 3.5: A new rule 3.5(3) is introduced.

A judgment entered in a claim for delivery up of goods or alternatively their value following the striking out of a defence for failure to comply with an 'unless order' shall require the defendant to deliver the goods, or pay the value of the goods as decided by the court.Rule 8.2A: One can be excused for wondering why a new rule should provide for a practice direction to set out the circumstances in which the court may give permission for a claim form to be issued under part 8 without naming a defendant.The answer lies in the Chancery Division: this is essentially a reform of the procedure on trustees' applications for directions.

It applies, but is not limited, to applications in relation to actual or proposed litigation (Beddoe applications); the court may, in an appropriate case, be able to assess whether to give the directions sought without hearing from any party other than the trustees.

Rule 8.2A sets out the procedure.Rule 12.3: Part 12 deals with default judgments.

A defendant to a counterclaim is not permitted to file an acknowledgement of service form (see rule 20.4(3)) nor can he be in breach of rule 12.3(2) (failure to file a defence) because he will never have filed the acknowledgement of service.

Mind-blowing stuff.

What it means is that at the moment one cannot obtain a default judgment against a defend ant to a counterclaim.

That changes on 2 May; it will thereafter be possible to obtain a judgment against the dilatory claimant who fails to file a defence to the counterclaim.Whether the new provision is worthwhile is another matter.

There are many traffic cases, for instance, in the small claims track where the defendant brings a counterclaim.

There is no need at the moment for the claimant to file a reply and defence to counterclaim; all there is to say about how the accident happened is to be found in the claim form and defence.But if the claimant does not file a defence to the counterclaim, will the defendant enter a default judgment? He will do so administratively; there will be no judicial intervention at that stage.

All it will prompt is an application to set aside and an argument over the costs thrown away.

One hopes common sense will prevail.Rule 12.3 will be amended to make it clear that a claimant cannot obtain a default judgment if there is a pending application by the defendant either for summary judgment or (the new provision) to strike out the claimant's case under rule 3.4.Rule 20.3: This gets a makeover as a result of the amendment to rule 12.3.

Rule 20.3(3)(b) -- which contained a double negative -- is now rewritten in plain(er) English.Rule 23.10: An application is made without notice under rule 23.9; what can the affected party do? Rule 23.10 was worded loosely.

As from 2 May it will say that a person who was not served with a copy of the application notice before an order was made under rule 23.9 may apply to have the order set aside or varied.

The application must be made within seven days of the date of service of the offending order.Rule 24.4(3): This provides for at least 14 days' notice to be given of an application for summary judgment.

A new rule 24.4(4) will give the vice-chancellor the scope by practice direction to provide for a different period.Rule 27.2: What was, presumably, a drafting error in the original CPR is now corrected: rule 27.2(1)(e) is to be amended to make it clear that in a small claims case the court can direct that the expert evidence be given by a single joint expert.Rule 31.23: Make a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth and the spectre of contempt descends.

From 2 May the same sanction will apply if a false disclosure statement is made without the requisite honest belief: a new rule 31.23 will so provide.