International Construction Law Review

Chantal-Aimée Doerries KC; Professor Douglas Jones AO

Document

CORRESPONDENTS' REPORTS ENGLAND AND WALES

ANDREW TWEEDDALE AND MARTIN BRIDGEWATER

Norton Rose

INTRODUCTION

For those involved in construction law in England, 1999 has been another year of radical changes. The rules relating to civil litigation underwent their most fundamental reforms in over 100 years. The Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules were consigned to the wastepaper basket, and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) took their place. The changes to the legal system have affected everyone involved in civil litigation including, not least, construction lawyers. The impact that the rules have had cannot be overemphasised. The rules will not only affect litigation, but their effect will cross over to arbitration. Arbitrators when hearing cases are obliged to act judicially when exercising some of their discretionary powers. The CPR will be the benchmark in determining whether a power is being exercised judicially or not.

Prior to 1999 a number of new pieces of legislation affecting the construction industry had been enacted. Cases relating to this legislation are now being tried and tested before the courts. There are now numerous cases relating to the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCR). Outside these areas, however, there have not been any landmark cases affecting construction law.

CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES (CPR)

Background and objectives

The CPR has radically changed civil litigation in England. The Rules are new, exhaustive and to a great extent self-contained. The CPR apply to all actions commenced after 26 April 1999 and are made up of three distinct sources of information. The first are the “Parts”, which are the detailed sections of the Rules. The second are the “Practice Directions” which supplement the Parts and provide further detail to the text of the Rules. In addition there are Protocols. The Protocols in existence are directly applicable only to matters relating to personal injury and medical negligence; whereas the Practice Direction on Protocols is relevant to all areas of the law.