CPR changes dot the Is and cross the Ts

District Judge Michael Walker surveys the main provisions in the 17th update to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998

What is effective when?Everything to do with costs came into effect on 3 July 2000 (yet the update was not published until 27 July): the rest comes into effect on 14 August 2000.

PD2B para 3.1(e) Allocation of cases to levels of judiciaryThe changes to the cost rules preserve the appeal route from authorised court officer to a cost judge, but apart from that, appeals on costs follow the unified structure of Part 52; this paragraph now falls into line with those provisions.

PD6 new para 8.3 ServiceAs we know, there is a new form N251 to be used to inform the other side of any funding arrangement.

File it with the claim form/acknowledgement of service/defence and the court will serve it on the other side provided it is filed at the same time and in sufficient copies.

Do not expect the court to do your photocopying for you - it won't.

PD6B para 10.2: Service abroadThis contains a minor correction to the telephone number of the Foreign Process Section at the RCJ; the correct number is 020 7947 6691.

The extra-jurisdictional table remains unaltered, but it's fascinating to read: Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cocos Islands...

it quite puts one in the holiday mood.

PD7 para 3.9: How to start proceedingsPD8 para 2.2: Alternative procedure for claimsPD10 para 5.5: Acknowledgment of servicePD15 paras 1.4 and 3.4: Defence and replyPD16 para 14.3: Statements of casePD42 para 2.7:Change of solicitorDealing with six amendments at a stroke, the above all now contain new cross-references relating to the need to serve notice of a funding arrangement.

PD7C para 1.4(4): Production centrePD19B para 16.2: Group litigationPD37 para 4.3: Payments into courtPD 40B para 1.5: Judgments and ordersThe first three merely correct previously inaccurate cross-references; the fourth tidies up inelegant drafting.

PD15 new para 3.2A Defence and replyRule 15.8 says that if a claimant files a reply to the defence he must file his reply with his allocation questionnaire.

PD15 para 3.2 says that where a claimant serves a reply and a defence to counterclaim, these should form one document.

The defence to counterclaim is due 14 days after the counterclaim is served, but under rule 26.3(6) the date for filing a completed allocation questionnaire is at least 14 days after the date it is served by the court.

See the problem? The new para 3.2A says that the court in such circumstances will normally order that the defence to counterclaim must be filed by the same date as the reply, that is, with the allocation questionnaire; where the court does not make such an order, the reply and defence to counterclaim may form separate documents.

In reality, would a procedural judge make such an order and even if he did, would it be served on the parties in time to have a significant effect on the drafting of the reply and defence to counterclaim? The cynic would say it would not.

PD23 para 6.1A ApplicationsThe 16th update introduced this provision, namely that if one wants an application heard over the telephone one should say so in the application notice, or as soon as possible thereafter.

But someone put para 6.1A after para 6.5, which wasn't logical.

It has been moved to after para 6.1.

PD26 paras 2.1 AllocationThe allocation questionnaire is still the much loved, concertina, N150.

Equally unchanged is the requirement to file a costs estimate but - and here is where it starts to change - only if the claim is outside the limits of the small claims track.

So no more costs estimates in all those cases inevitably to be allocated to the small claims track.There are also changes to cope with the new funding arrangements.

Outside the small claims track, when filing a costs estimate, remember:l To state the base costs incurred or to be incurred;l To show an itemised breakdown of how the figure is calculated;l To show separately the profit costs, disbursements and VAT;l To follow the new Precedent H in the schedule to the costs PD;l Not to reveal the amount of any additional liability (unless you really do want to tell the other side what you honestly think of your own client's case); andl To send a copy to the client.

PD26 para 7.4 AllocationPD28 para 6.1(4) Fast trackPD49 para 8.3 Contentious probate proceedingsThese are just changes in cross-reference arising out of the revision of the costs PD.

PD39 para 1.5(7) Hearings in privatePD42 paras 1.2 and 2.2 Change of solicitorThese are just minor tweaks of the previous provisions to allow for the replacement of the Legal Aid Board by the Legal Services Commission, although PD42 para 2.2(2) needs revisiting by the rule drafters for it contains what is now an orphaned reference to the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations.

PD43-48 Costsl Para 4.4(2) gets a close bracket where it didn't have one before - it took the author three readings of the new version to spot that close bracket.l Paras 11.7 and 17.8(2): the first of these provided that when the court is considering the factors to be taken into account in assessing an additional liability, it will have regard to the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the solicitor or counsel when the funding arrangement was entered into and at the time of any variation of the arrangement.This, however, is now expressly subject to a new para 17.8(2) which says that the court should have regard to the time when and the extent to which the claim has been settled, and to the fact that the claim was settled without the need to commence proceedings in those cases where the new 'costs only' proceedings are invoked under rule 44.12A.l Para 19.3(2) gets a colon where it had none before.l Para 21.5(1)-(6), which contains the extremely helpful list of categories of funding, gets a printer's make-over, with no substantive amendment.

The same happens to para 40.15.l Para 40.14 is supposed to have been amended, but the amendment must be pretty inconsequential as the author cannot spot it at all.

PD52 para 8.1 AppealsUnder the new appeal routes, an appeal to a High Court judge can either be from the decision of a circuit judge or a master/district judge of the High Court.

An amendment to para 8.1 brings it into line with the appeal routes set out in PD52 para 2A.

That is the only amendment this month to PD52.

PD Directors Disqualification Annex 1This took some spotting too: the postcode for Cardiff District Registry has been corrected.

FORMSThe new form N251 (Notice of Funding) is published.

There are three other new cost forms and some alterations to existing cost forms.

The important new form is the N260 'Statement of Costs (Summary Assessment)'.

That is well worth taking a look at.

The cost PD at para 3.2 refers to it as 'a model form', which means it is almost mandatory, but without saying so.

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