The article by Lawrence West, QC, last week suggested that the procedural reforms of the Civil Produce Rules (CPR) had resulted in the “virtual destruction of the very fine English civil legal system”.

This was hyperbole, but there was also valid criticism. The topic is of great importance because civil law is the structure upon which civilised society is built: it governs the relationships of individuals and corporate bodies with each other and with the state. It is self-evident that in a developed and fair society ready access to expeditious high quality courts is essential.

The interim report on Access to Justice in June 1995 identified a trio of evils felt to stand in the way of such access: delay, complexity and cost. The changes resulting in the CPR were intended as a solution to these problems.

The Woolf reforms have been quite successful in achieving a reduction in delay. Trials are now held pretty briskly by most standards. This is because case management by the judiciary does not allow soporific or incompetent litigators to prolong cases over many unjustified years. Striking out for want of prosecution is no longer needed. This aspect of the reforms has been valuable and is clearly a success.

Complexity. For some reason intelligent contemporary minds do not seem to operate in the way such minds used to. In the 19th century if you wanted legislation to deal with important and frequent transactions you aimed for brevity and simplicity. You got, for example, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which merchants as well as lawyers could understand.

Now, for no good reason, draftsmen do not draft, nor does Parliament enact, simple, easily understood provisions. Instead, we get legislation such as the Consumer Credit Act 2006, designed to cover common transactions for ordinary people, but incomprehensible to them. This spirit has badly contaminated criminal law and it has also unfortunately infected civil procedure.

Lord Woolf wanted less complexity in the CPR. They should, he said, be “simple and easily comprehensible to layman and lawyer alike”. So he changed the language a little; perhaps not always for the better (claimant), or for the shorter (statements of case) or for the more comprehensible (part 20 defendant).

The new rules almost always give a judge the power to do what is fair and appropriate. But is the overall position less complex and more readily understood?

In 1997, the last year before the CPR, the White Book (the civil procedure handbook) ran to 3,933 pages. It is now, with its supplement, 5,827 pages. Indeed, its editors feel it necessary to provide an 80-page Queen’s Bench guide, a 91-page Chancery guide and a costs guide of 108 pages. Simple, readily understood provisions do not require 287 pages of guidance.

Lord Woolf wanted to abolish “the multiplicity of practice directions”. The very opposite has happened — these now form a huge and inextricable part of the rules to which they relate.

The fast-track rules, for straightforward cases, are printed on seven pages, but with a practice direction (PD) of another nine.

Rather more importantly, how is a layman to understand the distinction between a rule and a practice direction? Does it matter? And why are they needed? Well-drafted rules, which often they are, should not need practice directions.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure