It is now more than four years since Lord Woolf was appointed by the then-Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, to conduct an inquiry into the civil justice system.

The establishment of the inquiry arose from the many perceived faults with the existing system.

In essence, the procedure which had developed over the past hundred years and practices within it were failing to deliver 'justice' in civil claims.

The system was cumbersome and expensive, particularly in relation to smaller claims.

Potential users of the system were resiling from it, either in favour of private dispute resolution such as arbitration or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or in total abandonment.Lord Woolf produced an interim report in June 1995 in which he identified the perceived faults in the system and their causes.

The report was intended to set the agenda for a final report which would detail the remedies.

That final report was produced in July 1996.The report received widespread publicity and was generally welcomed as establishing a way forward for change.

In it, Lord Woolf recommended, among other things, a wholesale change to the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) and County Court Rules (CCR) as part of a campaign to wrest control of litigation from solicitors and pass it to the courts.However, it was not the only voice for change.

At the same time, the profession was undergoing radical changes.

For example, the development, effectively, of multi-disciplinary practices, the introduction of conditional fees and the extension of advocacy rights.

At the end of July, the latest extension of conditional fees came into effect, removing all the previous limits.To a large part of the profession, the Woolf Report and its proposals may seem to have gone the way of many an inquiry or royal commission.

Extensive research having been undertaken and recommendations made, the passage of time and politics change the agenda and what was once seen as an urgent political need finds its place at the back of the queue for parliamentary time and interest.

Indeed, the change of government in May 1997 appeared to have had that effect on the Woolf Report and its proposals.

The new government immediately set in motion an appraisal of the proposals to be undertaken by Sir Peter Middleton.

The resulting report did not ultimately interfere with the task of changing the rules of court as recommended by Lord Woolf.To a certain extent, matters were being driven by the actions of the previous administration.

The Civil Procedure Act had been passed in February 1997.

This provided the statutory base for the new rules which were even then in draft form as the 'Brown Book'.Notwithstanding questions regarding the cost effect of the Woolf proposals, change to the RSC and CCR could be justified purely on modernisation grounds, introducing plain English into an archaic and often anachronistic system of delivering 'justice'.

The cost effect of Lord Woolf's proposals was undoubtedly a difficult political issue for both the old and the new administration.

At the heart of the proposals was the establishment of a procedure allowing the court a much more proactive role in the litigation process.

This undoubtedly called for funding commitment.It remains to be seen whether that commitment can be fulfilled and if not, to what extent the success of the proposals made by Lord Woolf depends on it.As far as the new civil procedure rules (CPR) are concerned the process of change is shortly to come to fruition.

Starting in July 1997, the CPR committee has reviewed and replaced the core rules of the RSC and CCR.

The statutory instrument invoking the CPR was signed in the second week of December.

Subject to the Lord Chancellor's review, the statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament this month.

Subject again to any parliamentary objections, the statutory instrument will become law in the next few weeks.

The CPR are likely to be published some time in mid-January.

At the same time or before they should also be available on the Lord Chancellor's Department's web site.The practice directions form an essential part of the new regime.

These have been prepared by a working party under the chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor.

Work on them has not yet been completed.

They will be finalised in January and should be published towards the end of the month.'Woolf Day', as it is being termed, is 26 April 1999.

On that day, all the old RSC and CCR are wiped away - subject to recodification.

It may be a little early to say throw away the old White and Green Books but the time should come quite shortly when the old authorities contained in those mighty tomes are pretty irrelevant.

The '.

.

.new procedural code.

.

.' (CPR .R1.1) is intended to be an exhaustive code casting away much that has gone before although no doubt it will itself quickly pick up its own precedents.As yet the CPR Committee which has been meeting weekly for some time has only dealt with the core rules.

Thus it has not dealt with, for instance, enforcement or appeals, judicial review or service out of the jurisdiction.

This has meant that those old rules have had to be recodified as a schedule to the CPR.

The language in them has been changed and where possible the RSC and CPR have been consolidated into one rule with appropriate amendments.

As part of the CPR they are subject to the core CPR; such as Part 1, the overriding objective.Practitioners need to prepare for the CPR now because, as near as possible, they will apply to all outstanding litigation on 26 April or as soon as the court deals with the proceedings thereafter.In some instances, the rules follow some form close to that of the RSC or CCR.

However, in most instances the new rules reflect a different approach to civil litigation derived from Lord Woolf's criticisms of the old system and his proposals for the new.At the heart of the new rules is the concept that, 'there should be a fundamental transfer in responsibility for the management of civil litigation from litigants and their legal advisors to the court'.

The embodiment of this principle is in 'case management'.

This is provided under the new rules in three distinct systems for differing levels of claim - the small claims track, the fast track and multi-track.

As set out in the CPR, the court will have the power to control every aspect of the litigation process from beginning to end.

The extent to which it will be able to do so does undoubtedly depend on the resources available to it.

The extent to which district judges and masters will be able to exert their influence will depend on the time that they have available.

What the committee has done following L ord Woolf's recommendations is establish the foundation upon which the court can exert its influence and control.England is not the first jurisdiction to attempt to modernise its civil justice system.

Other Commonwealth members and the US have been through similar exercises.

The one statistical lesson learnt is that a sure fire way of speeding up the civil litigation process - which is seen as one of the primary aims in the Woolf Report - is to establish trial dates at an early stage.

To a certain extent, the case then manages itself because the parties have to complete all the necessary tasks within that timeframe.

Accordingly, under the CPR for the fast and multi-tracks, the court will have an obligation to establish trial dates or a trial window - similar to the warned list system - at an early stage.

This will undoubtedly place pressure on both practitioners and the court.

For the court's part, the Court Service maintains that it can meet the necessary standards.

In fact, the new IT system will not be up and running by April and it looks as though it may be a couple of years before that comes into full effect.

To list all of the changes that will be effected by the CPR would take a series but here are some examples:-- Proceedings will be commenced by a standard form - a claim form for both High Court and county court.

The fully pleaded case may be endorsed upon the claim form or served as a separate form.

It will have to be endorsed with a statement of truth and as such may be used as evidence at an interlocutory hearing (such as summary judgment) or at trial.-- Interrogatories and Further and Better Particulars are to be replaced by a Request for Further Information for clarification.-- Affidavits are replaced by witness statements which will become the general form of written evidence to be provided to the court.-- The disclosure, that is, discovery process, will be significantly more limited than currently.-- Lord Woolf proposed that either the court or parties should use one single expert rather than employing individual experts to provide differing views at trial between which the judge should choose.

He admitted that most respondents to his interim report disagreed although they admitted there were faults with the current system.

The result in the CPR is that the court will have the power to require the parties to instruct one expert or alternatively appoint its own expert (an assessor) to assist it.

The court already has this power under RSC order 40 but it is rarely used.

Otherwise practitioners should expect strict limitations on the use of experts.-- In addition to the standard form for commencing proceedings, there will be a method to reflect in part the originating summons procedure in the High Court where there is no substantial dispute as to facts.

This could apply to a whole range of procedures from construction summonses to judicial review.

These cases will be subject to case management but should proceed to trial swiftly with evidence - when it is needed - being provided by the pleadings endorsed with a statement of truth or witness statement.-- Developing a new regime for costs has been part of the central attack to try and reduce the expense of litigation.

As previously, only limited costs will be recovered under the small claims track - claims up to £5,000.

Initially it was proposed that recoverable costs in the fast track should be statutorily limited.

In the event, the limits relate only to 'trial costs' and in the main what will be recoverable will be in the discretion of the court.

However, practitioners should not expect the court to be particularly generous in fast track cases - between £5,000 and £15,000.-- The other major change to the costs regime is that recoverable costs will be subject generally to a test of proportionality, a word central to the CPR.

Subject to any complicating factors practitioners should expect to recover only those costs that they can prove are correctly proportional to the amount in dispute.The civil procedure rule committee and associated committees such as the working party on practice directions have been under considerable time pressure to produce the CPR.

The Law Society and others have expressed concern that the timetable for inception of the CPR is too short for the courts and practitioners.

However, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Woolf take the view that little advantage is to be gained by waiting any longer.

That some matters may have been left unclear or conflicted will undoubtedly be the case.

Legislating through a committee requires compromise and concession.

Although substantial discretion is given to the court of management or trial, the Court of Appeal will undoubtedly have to consider various issues arising out of the CPR in due course.In the meantime, if the courts can and do operate the CPR as intended practitioners will face a different playing field after 26 April.

A whole new ball game? Well not quite, but like it or not Lord Woolf and the CPR committee have set the Court Service and practitioners a challenge to be met in a short space of time.