Update 30 rolls into town

District Judge Michael Walker, armed with word-counter, looks at the 30th update of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998

Summarise the update in 1,100 words, the instructions said.

'Tricky' was the reply.

If you live outside London you may not be bothered about the changes to practice direction 75 (traffic enforcement) to cope with congestion charges.

Only those dealing with crime will be interested in the new practice direction supplementing the Rules of the Supreme Court, order 115 on the subject of restraint orders and the appointment of receivers in connection with criminal proceedings and investigations, or in the equally new 'civil recovery' practice direction in connection with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

They are the civil way of getting 'tough on crime', but what about the other changes? What follows is subjective.

It all comes into play on 1 April 2003.

And that is no joke.

There was so little unanimity among consultees that the Lord Chancellor's Department decided to abandon its attempt to introduce a standard pre-action protocol.

But amendments to the protocols practice direction (PPD) will achieve almost the same result.

For a start, there will be new paragraphs 3.3-3.5 introduced into the PPD making it clear that the protocol sets out the 'normal, reasonable way of dealing with disputes'.

Failure to comply, other than trivial breaches, could attract sanctions.

Start a case before complying with the protocol and you will find the other party, encouraged by the protocol, applying for a stay while they catch up.

But the real changes that all litigators need to read are to be found in paragraph 4.

Set out there are the content of the claimant's letter, the need for the defendant to acknowledge receipt within 21 days, the content of the considered response from the defendant (although there is no hard-and-fast timetable for when that response is due), an exhortation to negotiate and a plea that 'if an expert is needed, the parties should wherever possible and to save expense engage an agreed expert'.

It is absolutely compulsory reading.

Payments into court

Come April Fool's Day, the outdoor clerk will not be able just to walk down to the local county court anymore and make a payment into court.

Instead, the Supreme Court practice will have to be followed, namely that the money will have to be paid into the Court Funds Office (CFO) direct by the defendant.

Notice must be served by the defendant (the court will no longer have the discretion to do so) on the offeree and a copy of the notice, together with a certificate of service, must be filed at court.

The cheque to CFO must be drawn in favour of the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court.

CFO will also want a sealed copy of the claim form (potential for plenty of days' delay there while the local court provides one) and Court Funds Office form 100.

There are lots of changes to parts 36 and 37, to their supplemental practice directions and to the forms, for the new rules also apply where the court orders money to be paid in, or where the money is to be paid out.

But for those without a bank account there will still be provision to pay over the court counter in cash.

PD37 will also now deal with payments into court under the Vehicular Access across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002 which is best left for another day.

Intellectual property

The update sees the demise of PD49E and its replacement by part 63 (a total of 17 rules) and PD63 (a mammoth 28 paragraphs) dealing with patents.

That is far too much for a 1,100-word article.

Experts in the field will no doubt read the detail elsewhere.

The procedures are fundamentally different to the average case under the Civil Procedure Rules; little, for instance, of part 29 applies.

Anti-social behaviour

As a result of the Police Reform Act 2002, which amended the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) will be available in the county court, from 1 April 2003, in limited circumstances.

A relevant authority (police, local authorities, British transport police and registered social landlords) will be able to apply for an ASBO - but only as against the tenant defendant - where there are already 'principal proceedings', in other words a possession claim, before the county court involving anti-social behaviour by the tenant.

The police will also be able to apply, under part 19, to be joined in the case so as to be able to apply themselves for such an order.

Just how much use is made of this new provision, instead of the police trotting down to the local magistrates' court, remains to be seen.

Interim orders can be sought under part 25.

It is all in a wholly new practice direction.

And what else is in the 30th update?

- Rule 25.13(2) is amended to make plainer the circumstances that have to apply before an application for security for costs can be made.

- There is a new PD5B on e-communication with Walsall and Preston County Courts which is essential reading for anyone doing business with either of those two courts or with an interest as to where court service is heading in terms of information technology development.

- That old favourite, PD52 (appeals), is yet again amended, but the changes to paragraphs 20 and 22 will only affect those acting for health care professionals (doctors, dentists, osteopaths and chiropractors).

- Paragraph 1.7 of PD55 will henceforth spell out that a claim which is not a possession claim may be brought under the part 55 procedure if it is started in the same claim form as a possession claim which must be started in accordance with part 55.

The example given is an apparent claim under paragraphs 4-6 of part 1 of schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 where the claim, started under part 55, was designed to enforce the rights referred to in section 3(1)(b) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

- PD58 (Commercial Court) and PD60 (Technology and Construction Court claims) are tweaked in relation to the procedure to follow when applying to transfer cases into those courts.

- And finally, paragraph 2.3 of PD62 will make it clear that an arbitration claim form relating to a landlord and tenant or partnership dispute must be issued in the Chancery Division.

District Judge Michael Walker sits at Wandsworth County Court and is a contributor to Jordan's Civil Court Service