The first day of 2006 not only heralded the start of a new year but also the commencement of the newly amended Supreme Court Rules ("the Rules"). Every case begun from that day onward, and those cases in existence at the beginning of the year, are now governed by the amended Rules.

The importance of this development cannot be overstated. By adopting the Rules, the Supreme Court ("the Court") has ushered Bermuda into the 21st Century, beginning to align this jurisdiction with the modern court procedures existent in the leading jurisdictions of the common law world.

Over the course of the next few weeks I will explain some of the significant differences and improvements that have been made to the Rules.

The Rules provide that proceedings in the Supreme Court must be conducted subject to "the overriding objective". This phrase has been adopted from the English Supreme Court Rule reforms of Lord Woolf, which revolutionised the way civil litigation in England and Wales is conducted.

Most importantly, the overriding objective requires the Court to, as far as is possible, see that the parties to an action are on an equal footing despite their possible differing abilities to finance an expensive court proceeding. This may mean limiting the number of interlocutory applications, dispensing with unnecessary applications and procedures, and restricting the numbers of documents to be disclosed in an action to those that are material to the matters in issue in the litigation. This will save expenses for the litigating parties and will also save the time of the Court.

Proportionality with reference to the subject matter of the complaint or the value of the claim will be primary considerations, as will the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of the parties. This means that the court will ensure that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly while at the same time allotting to the users sufficient and appropriate allocation of the court's resources. Under the amended rules the court has an obligation to actively manage the cases that are issued and which are heard before it. Active case management will include:

Encouraging the cooperation of the parties during the conduct of proceedings;

Identifying the issues at an early stage, and deciding promptly which issues need further investigation and trial;

Disposing of other matters summarily;

Deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;

Encouraging the parties to consider alternatives to resolving the dispute and facilitating the use of such procedures;

Assisting the parties to settle the whole or part of the case;

Fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case to trial;

Considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it;

Dealing with as many aspects of a case as it can on the same occasion;

Dealing with aspects of the case without the need for the parties to attend;

Making use of technology; and

Giving directions to enable a case to proceed quickly and efficiently.

The most significant change brought about by the introduction of the Rules is that cases will now be dealt with far more quickly than may have been the case in the past. Judges will take charge of a case and require certain things to be done and other things not to be done. Judges will actively encourage settlement and the use of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as negotiation or mediation. The courts may dispense with the attendance of parties on standard directions hearings and will be more prepared to deal with certain procedural aspects of a case 'on the papers'.

A party to the litigation will not be allowed to bombard an opponent with oppressive applications or make demands that are designed to delay the litigation or simply run up costs.

Judges will take greater control of the litigation process and as the litigation unfolds, it is possible the Judge may call the parties together to discuss the prospect of a settlement, as is the norm in the US courts. Litigants often want to hear what a judge thinks of a case at the early stages to determine if the matter is worthy of continuing or abandoning.

Litigants should be pleased that at long last the courts are looking out for their financial welfare, and ensuring that cases do not take longer than is necessary to be heard.

E. Kelvin Hastings-Smith, FCIArb, is Counsel and Manager of the Litigation Practice Group at Appleby Spurling Hunter. A copy of Mr. Hastings-Smith's column can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling Hunter website: www.applebyglobal.com.

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.