Please stay -- a little bit longerUnless something different is proposed, the court will stay for the rule 26.4 standard period.

Only the parties know if one month is long enough.

Six months may be appropriate to an application for a Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 lease renewal.If one party asks for a stay and the other party does not, the district judge will wonder whether the request is genuine or an attempt to buy time.

Suspicion should be avoided by more than a simple tick of the 'request for stay' box in the allocation questionnaire.

Reasons and a suggested stay period should be given.Case management on the fast trackMost solicitors wish to avoid a case management conference (CMC).

Here is how to do it.-- Submit draft orders which have been approved by the other side and follow the tick box form (TBF) used by the district judge to assist the court staff to perfect orders on computer.

Ask the court office for copies of the TBF for fast-track (and multi-track) cases.-- Get the draft directions right on expert evidence.

The TBF follows the practice direction: no more than one expert per party in relation to any expert field and expert evidence in no more than two expert fields (rule 26.6(5)).

District judges may vary on the weight they attribute to the parties' reasons to instruct separate expert witnesses.

Remember PD 28 para 3.9.

If reports from separate experts are proposed there should be a requirement for the experts to meet to prepare a joint report (rule 35.12(3)).The TBF reflects the Parts 28 & 29 PDs.

The allocation expert witness direction gives permission to obtain a report.

It is the subsequent listing directions which will say whether the court gives permission for any expert to give oral evidence.

But the allocation questionnaire asks you to give the unavailable dates for any expert witness.

Is it worth going to the trouble of obtaining the unavailability dates at the allocation stage unless it is likely the court will permit the expert to give oral evidence?-- Provide for dates by which completed listing questionnaires should be filed and served (where appropriate) and for the trial.

Unfortunately, the TBF stops short at the date for filing the listing questionnaires.

As to the trial date, PD 28 para 3.12 provides for no later than 30 weeks from the date of the notice of allocation.

In a claim without expert evidence, a delay of 30 weeks is too long.I suggest this draft direction: 'The court dispenses with a listing questionnaire.

The trial will be on the first date after.

.

.

with a time estimate of.

.

.'In some courts the allocation directions often give a date for the exchange of experts' reports earlier than the date which was proposed in an agreed draft order.

I believe there is a better option than for the court to alter the arrangements the parties have made with their experts -- a split trial, provided it is otherwise proportionate.

It ensures that liability is decided as soon as possible in accordance with the court's case management responsibilities.I predict that where claims cannot be prepared for trial within 30 weeks from the date of the allocation directions then split trials will become more frequent.All right on the day?It is dangerous to bank on that.

Be alive to PD 28 para 4.2(1).

'It is essential that any party who wishes to have a direction varied takes steps to do so as soon as possible.'When things appear to be going slowly, some solicitors do nothing except hope it will be all right on the day.

But '.

.

.postponement of the trial is an order of last resort' -- PD 28 para 5.4(6).

If the listing questionnaires show that directions have not been complied with, what is the case manager to do? There is usually no choice than to fix a pre-trial review when in the fast track there should be none.Where the timetable has slipped, the pre-trial review, whether directed on application or of the court's own initiative, must be as soon as possible.

In my view, that means not later than one week after the date on which the district judge directed the appointment.

If the court fixes a later date, there should be a protest.

A six-week wait means the timetable could be completely thrown and the date of trial lost.At the hearing, practitioners should help themselves by providing a case summary of the outstanding issues and of the directions proposed to ensure that the timetable is brought up to date.

At this stage, an order to comply with pre-existing directions should routinely attract a strike-out sanction.If witnesses are unavailable for the trial date, is there an alternative to an adjourned hearing? If a witness statement has been obtained, why not rely on the statement without calling the witness at all (Civil Evidence Act 1995 section 2 and rule 33.2).

What about expert witnesses? If there is a single expert there should be no difficulty -- the expert's written report and any questions and answers will be admissible.

It is unlikely the court will permit a joint single expert to give oral evidence.What if there are separate experts, as frequently occurs in claims prepared before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force? If the experts have not met, fix a date for that meeting.

Do not waste time waiting for a further direction.What if either of the parties wants to obtain or to use an additional expert's report? If the expert's evidence is directed to liability, the district judge has probably little choice but to adjourn the trial or to refuse the application.

If the expert's evidence is directed to damages there is an alternative: a split trial.

The decision will depend on the balance of the overriding objectives.

Advocates should be ready to answer:-- why any existing expert's report is inadequate;-- why written answers to questions are likely to be insufficient;-- why the probative value of an additional report outweighs the additional cost and delay;-- how much will be added to the earlier costs estimates of both sides.I suggest that the closer to the trial date is the application for an additional expert, the more likely it is that the applicant will be disappointed.Fast track hearingsTime estimates should take account of the time saved because the judge has read the papers before the trial and an opening address is unnecessary.

The statements of the witnesses of fact will stand as their evidence in chief.Write a trial timetable.

How long will it take to cross-examine each witness, for the final submissions, the judgment and the assessment of the costs? File the trial timetable with the listing questionnaire.Has the costs schedule been served? Failure to serve the schedule risks costs being disallowed.

It is unsafe to assume that the court will find it to be disproportionate to penalise the receiving party by disallowing their costs.If the court adjourns the summary assessment to a date to be fixed, the receiving party will bear the costs of a subsequent hearing.