The second set of amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) for 2009 were contained within the Civil Procedure (Amendment No2) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/3390) and the much longer update 51 which effected changes to the CPR Practice Directions. Unless otherwise stated, the changes were effective from 6 April 2010.

The change which took up the most space and which required most of the rule changes was just a tidying up measure. All CPR practice directions (but one – see below) now have a number. For example, the ‘Practice Direction Supplementing Part 24’ is now simply ‘PD24’.

The sole exception to the new ­numbering system is the longest PD of all which supplements parts 43 to 48. This will continue to be known as the ‘Costs Practice Direction’.

There is a new PD 5C which replaces PD51C – Electronic Working Pilot Scheme. The new PD applies in the Admiralty, Commercial and London Mercantile Courts, the Technology and Construction Court and the Chancery Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, including, in the case of the Chancery Division, the Patents Court and the Bankruptcy and Companies Courts. It applies to all claims started on or after 1 (not 6) April 2010 and to claims which were started or continued electronically under the pilot scheme which ran from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.

All claims will be stored in electronic format. Claims should be started in electronic format though this is not compulsory. However, any claim not started electronically will be converted to electronic format by scanning.

Electronic working does, of course, have significant advantages. In particular, the concept of ‘opening hours’ is irrelevant, for the scheme operates 24 hours a day all year round including weekends and bank holidays.

Fancy the Chancery Division moving from quill pens to electronic working at a stroke (what would Dickens make of that?).

Costs estimates on filing of allocation questionnaires are no longer required in fast-track cases. Statements of costs for fast-track cases now have to be filed not less than two days before the trial. And for applications, the statement of costs must be filed and served not less than 24 hours before the time fixed for the hearing. Thus, for example, a statement faxed at 4pm for a hearing the next day at 10am is out of time: it must be faxed no later than 10am on the day before the hearing (which means, of course, that it had better be done the day before that).

The revocation of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 has required amendments to paragraph 32.5. Despite exhortations of the Court of Appeal in Hollins v Russell [2003] EWCA Civ 718, there remains a reluctance by some to disclose the CFA on a detailed assessment. If the CFA is not disclosed the amended PD sets out the information which must be provided instead.

It is now recognised that routine communications are not just by letter or telephone. Routine communications by email or other electronic communication (such as text message) can be charged in the same way.

Previously, documents for telephone hearings were to be filed by 4pm on the last working day before the hearing. This is too late for the document to reach the court file. Accordingly, PD23A-applications have been amended and paragraph 6.11 now requires any document to be filed and served no later than two days before the hearing. Although not a requirement of the PD, your author strongly recommends that, in addition to complying with the earlier filing time, and whether the document is filed by hand, post, fax or electronically, the covering letter should also state in bold in the heading ‘URGENT. REQUIRED FOR TELEPHONE HEARING ON [DATE] AT [TIME]’ in addition to the case name and number.

Paragraph 6.12 requires a case summary and draft order to be filed by the same time in all multi-track cases and in small and fast-track cases if the court so orders. Even without an order of the court, it is good practice to file a case summary if the case is unusual and a draft of the order sought in fast-track cases.

There are amendments to rules 2.3(1), 6.2(d) and 48.6(6)(b) and to PD32 as a consequence of the Legal Services Act 2007, and (with effect from 15 February 2010) to rule 52.7, PD52 and PD54 as a consequence of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with section III of part 54 being revoked.

For some purposes all citizens of Europe are members of one big (happy?) family. There must be no discrimination between family members! Rules 6.6, 6.7 and 6.23 have had to be amended to achieve compliance with EC Directive 2006/123/EC. Note that these amended rules are not confined to the European Union but to ‘the EEA’, the European Economic Area which comprises all 27 member states of the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

The new rule 6.7 provides that where the defendant has given in writing the business address within the jurisdiction, or within any EEA state, of a solicitor as an address at which the defendant may be served with the claim form, the claim form must be served at that address. Similarly, where a solicitor acting for the defendant has notified the claimant in writing that the solicitor is instructed by the defendant to accept service of the claim form on behalf of the defendant at a business address within the jurisdiction or within any EEA State, the claim form must be served at the business address of that solicitor. (In either case the existing rules in part 6 as to when service is deemed effected are unaffected).

The amended rules continue to use the term ‘must’ and it has already been held that where written notice has been given, service on the defendant instead of the solicitor is not valid service (Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 127). It is a mandatory rule.

Amendments to PD74A-Enforcement of Judgments in Different Jurisdictions came into force on 10 January 2010 (new paragraphs 3, 6A, 7.5 and 9.4) as a consequence of the new (2007) version of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Further Lugano-related amendments were made by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/3131) and came into force on 1 January 2010; they effected minor changes only to CPR Part 6 (Service), Part 12 (Default Judgments), Part 25 (Interim Remedies and Security for Costs) and Part 74 (Enforcement in Different Jurisdictions).

Part 66 and PD66 deal with ­proceedings against the Crown. The CPA1947 provides for proceedings against the Crown to be brought against and served upon the authorised government department. A new list of the appropriate departments and their addresses for service is included as an annex to PD66.

District Judge Robert Hill sits at Scarborough and Leeds county courts and is a member of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee