Woolf strikes as bell rings on round 24

District Judge Michael Walker takes a look at the 24th update of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998

The change most worthy of praise brought about with the 24th Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) update has in fact nothing at all to do with the Stationery Office.The release of the update coincided with a complete transformation of the presentation of the CPR on the Lord Chancellor's Department Web site.

A visit to the Web site not only lists the amendments but contains links to the rules and practice directions themselves where the amendments appear in pleading form, either deleted or emboldened.

Well done, the Lord Chancellor's Department.

The address to visit is the CPR update section at www.lcd.gov.uk.

But such innovations will not stop your writer.Wake upAnyone unfamiliar with CPR parts 55 and 56 has not been concentrating (see [2001] Gazette, 20 September, 39 and [2001] Gazette, 27 September, 41).

These two new parts are the major matters for the 24th update, but little more will be said about them here.Parts 55 and 56 and their accompanying practice directions are silent as to what happens to all those cases on the stocks on 15 October.For that the reader has to go back to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2001 (SI 2001/256) which provide at rule 31 that where a claim form relates to proceedings to which part 55 or part 56 would apply if it was issued on or after 15 October but it is in fact issued before that date, the new rules shall not apply, and the old Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) and County Court Rules (CCR) still apply as if they had not been amended or revoked.The logic is inescapable.

The new rules relate to how claims should be started: undefended actions will work through the court system quickly while defended actions are usually brought within the CPR anyway.

The transitional period ought to be short.But a word of warning.

Any solicitors who rely on the Blue Books as their main source of the rules need, for a while, to keep the existing pre-15th October possession/landlord and tenant rules which the 24th update otherwise discards.

Throw them away and it can be guaranteed that they will be needed.

So when does it all start?The short answer is 15 October.

The exceptions are amended references to the Post Office and to blood tests that ought to have appeared in the 22nd and 23rd updates.

Someone really was asleep.

Best say nothing else.Bar parts 55 and 56, what's in the 24th update? Most of the changes are pretty irrelevant, correcting cross-references and the like consequent on these two new parts joining the rules.Some typographical errors are corrected.

Two amendments to schedule 1 RSC order 51 give district judges the power to appoint equitable receivers both in the High Court and in the county court: previously the jurisdiction to do so had been unclear.

Others (amendments to CCR order 22 rule 8 and order 25 rule 13) tie in with an amendment to the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 and will permit the enforcement by High Court sheriffs of a county court order for possession made against trespassers.

Some old rules (and practice direction 49) are revoked as a result of the introduction of part 57 dealing with contentious probate proceedings.

And if the reader ever has to deal with the situation where an insolvency practitioner dies holding office in more than one case then read the new paragraph 1.6 to the practice direction dealing with insolvency proceedings.Part 51 - isn't it old hat?It was paragraph 19 of the practice direction supplementing part 51 that caused so much anguish in April 2000 when the automatic stay 12 months after the introduction of the CPR kicked in.

And what a kick it gave some claimants' solicitors.Fear not this time.

Part 51 is now amended so as to embrace not just the dreaded transitional arrangements but also pilot schemes as well.

This is all part of the grand - very grand - scheme to modernise the courts and to introduce effective information technology.The modernisation scheme will be introduced cautiously; the rule change will enable pilots at particular courts and for specified periods to be introduced by practice direction.

Timescale for any changes: not before next year at the very earliest.CPR go anti-socialSchedule 2 CCR order 49 rule 6B - Housing Act 1996 injunctions - is worthy of a visit, not least because when it becomes relevant there may not be time for a leisurely read through the rules.On 15 October those parts of sections 155 and 156 of the 1996 Act not already in force will be implemented.

Order 49 rule 6B is amended as a result to make it clear that an application for a warrant of arrest must be made under part 23 (without notice if necessary) but it must be supported either by an affidavit (a witness statement will not suffice) or by oral evidence; that when the alleged miscreant is brought before the court the judge may either deal with the matter or adjourn the proceedings; that where the proceedings are adjourned the court may remand the arrested person; that when they are released the matter must be dealt with within 14 days of the arrest; that as an alternative, committal proceedings under CCR order 29 may be brought...and so on.

There is also a new practice direction under CCR order 49 headed 'Housing Act 1996: Injunction'.

Its requirements as to the evidence when applying for a warrant for arrest have been dealt with above.

It additionally deals with applications for bail and remands for medical reports under the Mental Health Act 1983.All this makes compulsory reading for all those involved in dealing with defendants held to have been behaving anti-socially, for all solicitors acting for local authorities or housing associations and for all the writer's colleagues on the district bench who will be able to exercise this jurisdiction alongside the circuit bench.Questioning the expertPractice direction 35, paragraph 4.2 used to say that where one party sent written questions to an expert, and the other party is represented by solicitors, a copy of the questions should at the same time be sent to those other solicitors.Hardly a level playing field if the other party is acting in person.

After 15 October the practice direction says that the party raising the questions should always send copies to all other parties, whether they are represented or not.Appeals, againThese articles would not be the same if practice direction 52 (Appeals) was not mentioned.This time there are some tweaks now that Oxford has left the Midland and Oxford circuit (renamed the Midland circuit) to join the South-Eastern circuit.

But the significant change to practice direction 52 occurs at paragraph 5.8 dealing with appeals to the circuit judge from the district judge in the small claims track.

Previously the appellant (very often, of course, a litigant in person) had to lodge a suitable record of the reasons as expressed by the district judge.Not having taken a verbatim note, the litigant would have to request a transcript, and very often they would not be able to afford the expense.

So the requirement has been dropped.

But that could mean that the circuit judge will be deciding whether to grant permission to appeal with only the appellant's notice of appeal in front of him.How will the circuit judge be able to form a view on whether 'the district judge just didn't listen to me', or 'he or she got it all wrong'? That amendment may yet need sorting out.District Judge Walker sits at Wandsworth County Court and is a contributor to Jordan's Civil Court Service