Talk:Civil Procedure Rules

Expansion and editing

Ideas for further improvement:

• Moving some information into History has left Lead a little thin: bulk back up.
• More on new Case Management powers and methods
• Tracks: SCT, FT, MT
• Addition of "proportionate" to costs on standard basis including impact on conditional fee agreements
• More citations and references

Dave T Hobbit 11:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't the correct title be Civil Procedure Rules? They have been amended several times since 1998 and this article is not particularly about the 1998 version.Cutler (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MoJ web page is entitled "Civil Procedure Rules" (not 1998). Pol098 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Section 1 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 states "(1) There are to be rules of court (to be called “Civil Procedure Rules”) governing ..." The rules are The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which is a statutory instrument (note the capital 'T'). Thus, the title could be "The Civil Procedure Rules 1998". However, that would mean that the article is about the statutory instrument alone, which it isn't. It's better to use the prescribed title. The rules are updated via amendments to The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (the statutory instrument). There's only one set of rules, hence the 'universal' title. Pololei (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the CPR Committee

I suggest that the membership of the CPR Committee not be listed in the article; it goes out of date periodically, and the current membership is a mouse click away. I have deleted the existing (out-of-date) list; if anyone wants to reinstate and update it they can pick up the table headings and formatting from a version of the article preceding my edit of a few minutes ago. Pol098 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think that the references to the “Supreme Court” might have to be updated. Does it really mean the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, or in the old sense of the Senior Courts of England and Wales? – Kaihsu (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

review requested; it's easy probably

Please take a look at Costs (let such link load fully before starting to navigate, because that loading will jump you to the subsection at issue). The subsection at issue has several '[confirm]' tags, and your quick review could be very helpful. If a given assertion seems correct then you could just delete the '[confirm]' tag, and add no supporting source/footnote. Bo99 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)