District Judge Michael Walker continues his look at the 35th update of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and those amendments to be brought into force on 30 June 2004

'Just plain anti-social'.

That was the headline of a Benchmarks column last month that set out the legislative changes introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (see Gazette [2004] 27 May, 37).

Not to be upstaged by a mere piece or two of legislation, the full force of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) has swung into effect with a new part 65, which has five sections dealing with:

* Injunctions under the Housing Act 1996 (rules 65.22-65.7);

* Applications by local authorities under section 91(3) of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 for a power of arrest to be attached to an injunction (rules 65.8-65.10);

* Claims for demotion orders under the Housing Act 1985 and Housing Act 1988, and also proceedings related to demoted tenancies (rules 65.11-65.20);

* Anti-social behaviour orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (rules 65.21-65.26); and

* Claims under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (rules 65.27-65.30).

It is certainly going to be tough out there for those making a nuisance or annoyance of themselves.

And the onslaught does not end there.

A new practice direction 65 supplements part 65 with another 14 paragraphs of detailed provisions.

If a demotion claim is made in the same claim form in which a possession claim is made, the application can be made under part 55, which accordingly goes through a series of consequential amendments.

If the application is for a stand-alone demotion order, then the claim is brought under rule 65.14.

Disputed claims are unlikely to end up in the small claims track (practice direction 26, paragraph 8.1(1)(c)).

Even if allocated to the multi-track the case will usually stay at the court of issue (practice direction 26, paragraph 10.1(1)).

A demoted tenancy carries no real security of tenure apart from the right to 'due process', namely a statutory notice and review for former secured demoted tenants or a two-month notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, where an assured tenant has become a demoted assured statutory tenant.

A claim for possession of the latter will be the same paper exercise currently used to end assured shorthold tenancies; several amendments to rules 55.11 and 55.12 so provide.

The only hope for the demoted tenant is to keep his head down, for after a year the demoted tenancy reverts back to being either a secure or assured tenancy.

One hopes he will have learnt his lesson.

For a while there was some doubt as to whether district judges had jurisdiction to deal with these various applications for injunction.

That is now laid to rest by several amendments to practice direction 2B, paragraph 8.

There has also been a tidying up to practice direction 2B, paragraph 11 that sets out the district judges' general jurisdiction in relation to land.

Space does not permit an analysis of all the different - and they are different - provisions in each of the five sections to part 65 and its supplemental practice direction.

For some while to come each will be a constant companion to all who deal in this area.

Part 65 is the major rule change introduced by the 35th amendment.

What of the other changes?

Without even a whimper, let alone a bang, rule 13.5 has been revoked.

That was the provision that said where a claimant had a default judgment and where he then had good reason to believe that the defendant had not been properly served with the particulars of claim, he had himself to apply for the judgment to be set aside and for directions.

It never happened, of course, as the claimant would always assert good service.

So at least we are now spared one argument on the next contested application to set aside.

Rule 6.10 is amended so that a certificate of service is no longer required to state that the document served has not been returned undelivered.

But a statement of truth is required instead.

Form N215 gets the necessary makeover.

It will also now be possible to use e-mail to serve a request for further information under part 18.

Practice direction 18, paragraph 1.7 will so provide.

However, it is subject to the recipient being prepared to accept service electronically and all the other requirements of practice direction 6, paragraphs 3.1-3.3 being in place.

But if a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is started in the High Court and is served out of the jurisdiction, the defendants get an extra seven days under a new rule 57.16 in which to acknowledge service.

Every update has to introduce some changes to practice direction 52 (appeals); the 35th in fact brings in a whole raft of them.

In the grounds for appeal it is now necessary to say whether each ground raises an appeal on a point of law or is an appeal against a finding of fact.

An appellant who is seeking oral permission to appeal and who is represented must lodge a brief written statement at least four days before the date fixed for hearing.

Get past those hurdles and there are new requirements for the appellants' bundles and skeleton arguments.

And beware - costs might be disallowed if the skeleton arguments are wrong.

Even the respondents' documentation is revised, and the preparation of the bundles for the actual appeal has been wholly rewritten.

Get that last one wrong and the Court of Appeal might list your appeal for dismissal (see practice direction 52, paragraph 15.2).

And so the changes go on right up to preparing bundles of authorities for the final hearing, dealing with the reserved judgment, correcting any errors in it and, if luck was not on your side, seeking permission to trouble the House of Lords.

It's all absolutely mandatory reading for anyone either in, or contemplating a visit to, the Court of Appeal.

The Law Lords intend to run an even tighter ship, and woe betide anyone who rocks the boat.

District Judge Walker sits at Wandsworth County Court