Talk:Civil Procedure Rules

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion and editing[edit]

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)[reply]

Article title[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Membership of the CPR Committee[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

review requested; it's easy probably[edit]

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)[reply]