Journal of Information, Law and Technology

Standardisation of Data for the Judicial Intranet – Uniform Case Citation

Sean Overend
DCJ Devon and Cornwall

beagle@lix.compulink.co.uk

This is a commentary published on: 30 June 1999

Citation: Overend S, 'Standardisation of Data for the Judicial Intranet – Uniform Case Citation', 1999 (2) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). <http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/99-2/overend.html>

1. Introduction
The advent of the judicial Intranet in 18 months time, coinciding as it does with the postponed implementation of the Human Rights Act, focuses attention on the future electronic landscape to be trodden by the judiciary. Significantly, by then all judges who want them are scheduled to have been provided with powerful computers.

This paper is concerned with maximising the benefit that can be expected from these significant IT developments, by setting out the need for standardisation of both the electronic format and the content of legal material. The benefits that can be expected to flow from such standardisation will be touched on. The factors that may help to maximise these benefits include the fact that the judiciary, through the Court Service, is a large and important purchaser of value-added legal material; this coupled with the fact that all electronic legal material is to be placed into the same Intranet, means that there is an opportunity to create a complete pool of compatible resources, accessible to all users. The goal is one of seamless access to all source material on the Intranet, without the need to pause at proprietary boundaries or search engines.

It is accepted that the impetus for standardisation may come initially from the ECHR implementation, although the problems arising from the format and availability of data are common to many other areas. Solutions that are right for the ECHR scene may also be right ‘across the board’.

2. The Present Topography
At present, electronic legal information is available in a variety of forms, including CD-ROM, on-line databases and via the Internet using web-page technology. On the ECHR front, the primary electronic source is the HUDOC database, which is available to anyone with access to the Internet. It is anticipated that a CD-ROM will shortly be issued containing Strasbourg material, using the same interface as that available on-line.

Judges currently have access to a mix of these sources, using electronic materials provided through the Court Service - White Book, Green Book, Red Book, Weekly Law Reports, Archbold, Blackstone, All ER - or through their own private ISP subscriptions to Internet sites, which in turn may provide free or subscription-only access to material that has been collected by the publisher in question.

The current usage of the available electronic material by judges is difficult to assess. There are probably a number of users who are both computer-literate and who have the capacity to make full use of the electronic resources. On the other hand, there are anticipated to be a relatively large number of IT-supplied judges, whose usage of IT is not maximised. It is quite apparent that the majority of judges on Legal Teleforum (Felix) not contribute to the conferences to which they are joined, - they are ‘silent watchers’. The extent to which they may use electronic database services such as New_Law is not clear.

Multiplicity of sources and diverse search engines may also have given rise to under-usage, which is not necessarily solved by providing training. Judicial training in IT is however essential.

3. Piece-Meal Development
Development of electronic source material provided by legal publishers to the judiciary has hitherto been supplier-led, rather than judge-driven. Compatibility of source material has not been a criterion; nor has uniformity of search techniques. The judge using a CD-ROM has to learn how to use the All ER search engine, and the White Book search engine, and so on. Neither is the same as the HUDOC search engine, whether accessed through the Internet or via the heralded HUDOC CD-ROM. Updating techniques are also different. Material in one proprietary database is not available to another.

There are some signs of progress. Context is able to provide a link from the name of a case or a reference to a statute in an electronic document (including an e-mail) to a case or statute in its own database. However, its own database is not accessible to case references in material emanating from other publishers - e.g. electronic text-books; nor can the Context service provide links to material provided by other publishers without their permission, such as the HUDOC database. None can link with the Statute Law Database. 

4. The Intranet
This paper is written on the basis that what is available on the Internet will be made available - if it is deemed useful to the judiciary - on the judicial intranet. There are however certain problems associated with the concept of the intranet itself.

If electronic material is stored as a mirror site on the intranet, then questions of up-dating (how, when and by whom) will inevitably need to be addressed. What was current at the time the mirror site was made will rapidly become less than current. This is true not only of static publications (like the current edition of Archbold), but also of on-line, and thus theoretically perpetually up-dated sites, such as the HUDOC database. The intranet version of the HUDOC database can only be as up-to-date as the image that was copied over, as the on-line updating process does not reach the intranet, other than through the individual updating cycles (which may be lengthy - possibly a matter of months).

The problem is less acute when the judiciary have control over the material and the updating procedures. The House of Lords website material can no doubt be made available instantly to the judicial intranet, providing the procedures are put in place to ensure that occurs. Distinct contractual procedures would have to be structured to obtain similar benefits for material in proprietary ownership.

It should not be forgotten that mere duplication of Internet sites by creating Intranet mirror sites, simply perpetuates the anarchy that already exists on the Internet. To the new user, the array of differing CD-ROM type material that is already available will be supplemented by all the ‘web-page’ services that have been mirrored across from the Internet. The danger is of information overload, and of disillusion caused by unfamiliarity with (or detachment caused by) the large number of search techniques that may need to be mastered.

5. Generated HTML and Static HTML
Browser technology enables material to be displayed on a variety of different makes of computer, and also allows files to be downloaded with ease. The display of textual material by different computers is possible because the material is ‘marked-up’ or ‘tagged’ in a manner that is commonly understood. HTML is understood by browsers, and directs how the text is to be displayed - e.g. its font, size, colour, layout etc. 

The browser is located in the user's (‘client's’) computer. The user requests the central (‘server’) computer to provide his computer with a marked-up ‘page’ or ‘web-page’ of material. The server computer sends the client computer the selected material, where the browser then operates on the web-page and displays it on the user's screen.

As long as there is perceived to be no advantage in providing links between one database of material and another, or in providing cross-database access to over-arching search engines, then there is no need for an HTML or ‘marked-up’ page of text to exist in the server computer until immediately before it is downloaded to the client computer. In many instances legal source material is stored in a database located in the server computer, which is accessed through a bespoke search engine. Once the desired document has been located, then and only then it is generated in HTML form by the server, and transmitted to the ‘client’ for display through the remote browser. The life-span of the generated HTML document in the server computer may accordingly be limited to the duration of the search carried out by the user. The latest configuration of the HUDOC material uses this technique.

Static HTML databases are quite different. They exist in HTML form at fixed locations (‘URLs’) within the server. They have the advantage that once access is gained to them (they may be password-controlled), then they may searched or downloaded by remote computers, quite independently of any additional search facilities that may be provided by the creator of the database.

6. What can be done with Fixed URLs
The features that are available to static HTML databases, which are not available to generated sites are the following:

(a)	External access to the material via hypertext link.

It would be extremely useful to be able to create links to the Strasbourg jurisprudence from any other document stored electronically. Indexes of cases, legal articles and textbooks are but a selection of the material whose value could be substantially enhanced if they could contain active links within them to Strasbourg material. It would not be long before skeleton arguments or judgments could themselves be linked to the relevant full text electronic source material. Appendix A sets out part of such an index as an example of what can be done.

Other links would also be useful for those wishing to access the full text using electronic cross-references between citations of proprietary and official publishers and the electronic text. It should be possible to obtain the full electronic text of a Strasbourg decision, whether it is referred to by Series A, Digest, EHRR, EHRLR reference, case name and date of decision or other reference. Ideally, this feature should be available automatically, without the necessity for the user having to access the HUDOC interface. The question of uniform case citation has wide implications, which are touched on below.

Strasbourg itself produces a number of useful hard copy case summaries of their jurisprudence, prepared by the Court's Registry. The summaries customarily appear at the head of each judgment. They contain a list of all cases which are referred to in the judgment. An example of a Strasbourg case summary (Gregory v United Kingdom) is attached as Appendix B. Ideally all such summaries should be made available electronically, with links to relevant paragraph numbers of the judgment and directly clickable links to the cases which are referred to in the judgment (which are listed in the summary), without the need to go through an intermediate search engine.

There is a similar hard-copy book, which Strasbourg is presently updating called ‘Subject Indexes to the Judgments of the European Court’. This is a list of (approximately 500 pages in length) that sets out indexed topics, Article by Article. The format of the Index is shown in Appendix C. Essentially it is a highly organised card index that permits the user to navigate through Articles, paragraphs and concepts, and thus find references to decided cases

Again, this is material that cries out for electronic presentation, linked to a static HTML database.

It does not take much imagination to contemplate JSB course material being prepared for distribution in electronic form, with direct links to ECHR cases stored as static HTML files. Such a facility would be quite invaluable to a judiciary that is to be supplied with computers and an intranet in the next 18 months. Electronic course notes prepared by an authoritative speaker, with live links to the source material, could provide the judiciary with ready ‘take-away’ access to the Strasbourg jurisprudence. The advent of the intranet would make it possible to update the course material, without the need for the judge to wait until s/he is able to attend a further course. He or she would simply download the latest version, updating both the ‘case book’ and the educational material at the same time.

While the above comments are directed at the ECHR jurisprudence, the same is of course true of all case-law and statutory material affecting the judiciary.

Adding value in the ways suggested in some cases involves ‘passes’ through the HTML pages of differing databases, in order to create links or tables, which may then be added to or accessed by other documents. Examples of this may already be found on the Internet in the context of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Austlii example is already well-known. Appendix D shows excerpts from the beagle CPR website, showing how automatic links can be generated, to provide ease of navigation and ‘live’ indexing concordances.

(b)	Searches of the material by other users.

Provided that the HTML material is coded in a standard way, it is possible to search through it by computer. A universal search engine could be readily devised that would provide the judiciary with a single form of search facility, without the need to become familiar with a variety of proprietary devices.

Indeed, Windows 98 and Windows NT already come with powerful full text searching commands, which can already be used to identify speedily the locations of textual material in large numbers of files. Once located, a list of ‘hits’ is prepared, which can be saved - and then each hit observed at leisure, by simply clicking on the reference.

6.1 Lack of Standardisation
The problem of searching across database boundaries is that material may not be stored in the same way by, either in its form or its tagging (if it is marked-up), even though the substance may be the same. Material is not always created with the computer's ability to search it in mind. For example the new Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions refer variously to an ‘expert report’, an ‘expert's report’ and also to an ‘experts' report’.

It is also trite to observe that the law is itself referred to in a potentially confusing manner. A judgment in the same case may start out as a transcript, or a word-processed handed-down judgment. If it is placed on the Internet by the Court, its format may take any number of forms.

The websites that are currently displaying UK decisions are not uniform in their approach. None of them is created in a form that is ideal. The House of Lords' website appears to be run by The Stationery Office. Judgments are accessed by reproducible URLs. Paragraphs are not, however, numbered. There are no headnotes of any sort.

The Court of Appeal website is billed as being part of the Court Service website. The server that is used is however one that is operated by CCTA. The URLs do not appear to be reproducible. The webpages seem to be constructed ‘on the fly’ from a database. There is an index which is ponderous.

High Court. The Divisional Court is served by the CCTA computer. The few reports appear to have paragraph numbers. Judgments emanating from other parts of the High Court are to be found on other servers. Chancery judgments are to be found in accessible form on both the courtservice.gov.uk domain name and the open.gov.uk/lcd name. Some have paragraph numbering, some do not.

The majority of UK cases are not, however, placed on the Internet by or on behalf of the Court. They fall to be reported, or not, on the decision of legal publishers, who have their own method of citation, by reference to their own organisation, and to their own pagination or referencing system. Thus a case may have a Law Report reference, or an All ER reference, or a specialist publication reference, and so on.

The European Court of Human Rights does not itself appear to have a uniform system of referring to its cases. For example the case of Klass and others v FRG, decided on 6/9/1978, appears in the Court's own 500 page Subject Index as number 28, yet in the HUDOC computer's list of judgments it appears as number 30. The only sure way of referring to a case seems to be by reference to the date on which it was decided. Similarly, Campbell & Fell v UK (28/6/84) is referred to as 80 and 84 respectively.

7. Uniform Case Citation
The advent of electronic publication of legal source material - particularly appellate case decisions - has brought it own pressures. There are three problem areas, two of nomenclature, and one which relates to the identification of the case name and reference material within the body of the electronic material (the ‘tagging’ problem).

7.1 The Nomenclature Problems
The naming questions are easy to pose, but more difficult to solve in practice. The case reference or citation can be broken down into two components:

(a)	the main reference to the case itself - an important question being, should this reference contain the name of a reference to a proprietary series of Law Reports?

(b)	the precise location within a judgment of any given text - the question being whether this subsidiary or ‘pinpoint’ reference be to a page number with side letters, or to some other device such as a paragraph number.

Looked at from a purely technical point of view, there is no reason why either the main or the subsidiary reference to electronically stored material should contain anything that derives its existence from a hard-copy version, let alone one in which there are proprietary interests.

Thus a case could be referred to by reference to the name of the parties, the name (probably abbreviated) of the court handing down the judgment, the year of the decision, and a number indicating where in the sequence of judgments handed down that year the case was decided. The fifth case in 1999 would be, say, (1999) 5. All that is then needed is a court reference and the name of the parties. Further, subsidiary (or pinpoint) references could be by paragraph numbers, since these are easily counted electronically, provided it is known where to start counting.

The technical solution has been considered in other jurisdictions (see Appendices E, F and G). The solution that has been adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1995, and by the High Court of Australia since 1998 is that there should be uniform citation of cases (in a form which is described as ‘Medium Neutral’). In the United States of America, the ABA’s1996 resolution in favour of Uniform Case Citation has been patchily adopted across some of the States. If the UK adopted the American suggestion, the equivalent England system would result in ‘combined’ references of the form:

Smith v Jones, 1999 HL 3, '25, [1999] 1 AC 257

The uniform reference is contained in 1999 HL 3, '25, where:

1999 is the year in which the decision was reached
HL is the House of Lords
3 indicates that it was the third decision of the House in that year
'25 is a reference to paragraph 25 of the judgment.

The remainder of the reference, i.e. [1999] 1 AC 257, is the ‘parallel citation’ of one form of hard copy, namely here the Law Reports. It is to be noted that there is no page number reference, as it is the intention of the proposed American citation system that ‘pin-point’ referencing should in future only be by paragraph number.

There have also been suggestions that take the international researcher into account. Not surprisingly, proposals have been made for an International System for the Citation of Court Opinions, which deal with topics such as Decision Numbering, Country or Region Codes, Court Hierarchy Codes, Jurisdiction Codes, Court Codes and Paragraph Numbers.

7.2 The Tagging Problem
Use of electronic material formatted for display on browsers using is fast becoming universal. What is not universal, however, is the way in which case references are ‘tagged’. Uniformity of tagging means ease of recognition by a computer program that a group of textual material is in fact a case reference, which can then be manipulated by a skilled computer programmer - to perform automatic indexing, cross-referencing and the like.

Roger Horne has suggested that tagging of cases should be in the format:

<case> name of case <ref> case reference </ref></case>
e.g.<case> R v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller & Co <ref> QBD Div Ct Transcript 12th May 1999 </ref></case>

If such a procedure were to be adopted, then it would be relatively easy to ensure a high success rate in searching for the names of case in large quantities of text.

8. The Need for Standardisation - Seen Through Australian Eyes.
The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated has recently (Feb 1999) issued the Second Edition of its Guide to Uniform Production of Judgments. It pointed out that there have been substantial developments in the use of computers for text retrieval. It stressed the need for pithy ‘topic structures’, the problem of pagination, and the need for a suitable means of referring to electronically recorded unpublished judgments. In that respect it recommended:

1.8.3…….There has been a need to develop a system of judgment citation which is applicable to printed and electronic versions of the same judgment alike. Ideally, that citation method should be capable of expression in a manner which is both medium and vendor neutral. It ought also to facilitate citation of specific locations in the text in an efficient and user friendly manner.

The Australian judiciary are required to create their own ‘catchwords’ and noters-up of cases referred to. Whether the English judiciary will have the time to create their own catchwords, or noter-up of cases referred to there is a good deal that can be adopted from the Australian recommendations. In particular it recommends:

5.7 Where it is desired to refer to a specific numbered paragraph of a judgment, when using a medium neutral citation, that number should be added at the end of the citation in square brackets to indicate that the reference is to a nominated paragraph. This is becoming the accepted protocol for such a reference. Example ‘In Smith v Jones [1998] HCA 99 at [17] the High Court said…..’. This will facilitate searching and translation in data formats.

5.8 For purposes of computerised presentation utilising existing electronic databases, it is desirable for citations to be retained with the name of the judgment, rather than placed in a footnote. ………. footnotes are, with technology currently in use, generally, database unfriendly. Endnotes are far preferable.

5.9 It should be emphasised that, if these protocols are not observed, the development of a truly effective electronic retrieval system becomes both difficult and uneconomic.

The recommendations include the need for consistent word processing styles and/or heading levels on judgment cover sheets and in the body of the document, together with the use of standardised ‘tags’ when judgments are being marked-up, the intention being that translation into SGML and HTML should be facilitated.

9. Conclusion 
The time has come for the English judiciary to begin to capitalise on the very substantial investment in computer hardware and software that is coming their way. To achieve that end an overview of the ebb and flow of the passage of legal information needs to be obtained, so that obstacles - most of which are entirely man-made - can be foreseen and avoided, before the flow is channelled into unproductive or uneconomic waste-lands.

The assistance of the legal publishers should be sought in order to achieve a large body of readily accessible electronic material, unimpeded by database boundaries and proprietary formats. In particular, so far as HUDOC is concerned:

•	steps should be taken to ensure that the judiciary are provided with the means to access the Strasbourg jurisprudence without the necessity of passing through the Fulcrum database, so that value-added products can be readily made, for the benefit of the judiciary, the legal professions and the public at large;

•	Strasbourg should be encouraged to provide both summaries and indexes of their judgments in electronic form, with links to a static HTML database;

•	the precise manner and format of the provision should be one that is capable of being adopted by other UK legal publishers, so that the electronic jurisprudence is capable of being enlarged to include all aspects of law likely to be of interest to the English judiciary in the future.

Standards should now be drawn up that are appropriate for the English legal system, that cover

•	The formatting of judgments
•	Pagination
•	Medium Neutral Citation
•	Marking-up
•	Internet and intranet publication techniques

Organisational structures should be put in place forthwith in order to provide both the strategic overview that is required, as well as the day to day management.

Appendix A: ECHR- List of Cases

An example of a ‘live’ list of cases. Necessarily limited, because of lack of ‘flat’ HTML source files.

A v UK [1998] EHRLR 82 (23/9/98) # 991	Art 3		
Ahmed v UK (2/9/98) #966 	Art 10		
AP, MP and TP v Switzerland 26 EHRR 541 (29/8/1997) #541	Art 6		
Ankerl v Switzerland (23/10/1996) #685	Art 6		
Ashingdane v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 528 A 93 (28/5/1985) #101	Art 6		
Autronic AG v Switzerland (1990) 12 EHRR 485(22/5/1990) #218	Art 10		
Balmer-Schafroth v Switzerland 25 EHRR 598 [1998] EHRLR 94 (26/8/1997) #795 	Art 6		
Barbera v Spain 11 EHRR 360 (6/12/1988) #179	Art 6		
Beldjoudi v France 14 EHRR 801 (26/3/1992) #349	Art 8		
Bendenoun v France 18 EHRR 54 (24/2/1994) #455	Art 6		
Berrehab v Netherlands 11 EHRR 322 (21/6/1988) #168	Art 8		
BH v UK [1998] EHRLR 334:CC v UK [1998] EHRLR 335 (1/12/1997)	Art 5		
Boner v UK 19 EHRR 246 (28/10/94) #485	Art 6		
Borgers v Belgium (1991) 15 EHRR 92 A 214-B (30/10/1991) #282	Art 6		
Botta v Italy [1998] EHRLR 486 (24/2/1998) #880	Art 8		
Bouchelkia v France 25 EHRR 886 [1997] EHRLR 433 (29/1/97) #727	Art 8		
Bowman v UK [1988] EHRLR 490(19/2/1998) # 874	Art 10		
Byrne v UK [1988] EHRLR 626 (App 37107/97) Transcript	Art 6		
Cable & others v UK (18/2/1999)	Art 6		
Camenzind v Switzerland [1998] EHRLR 352 (16/12/1997) #864	Art 13		
Campbell & Fell v UK 7 EHRR 165 (28/6/1984) #84	Art 6		
Chahal Family v UK 20 EHRR CD19 22414/93	Art 3		
Chappell v UK 12 EHRR 1 (30/3/1989) #185	Art 8		
Costello-Roberts v UK 19 EHRR 112 (25/3/93) #404	Art 3		
Coyne v UK [1998] EHRLR 91 (24/9/1997)	Art 6		
De Haes & Gijsels v Belgium 25 EHRR 1 (24/2/1997) #733	Art 6 and 10		
De Salvador Torres v Spain 23 EHRR 601 (24/10/96) #686	Art 6		
Deweer v Belgium 2 EHRR 439 (27/2/1980) #37	Art 6		
Dudgeon v UK 5 EHRR 573 (24/2/1983) #63	Art 8		
Ekbatani v Sweden 13 EHRR 504 (26/5/1988) #160	Art 6		
Engel v Netherlands 1 EHRR 706 (23/11/1976) #24	Art 6		
Farmakopoulos v Greece No 11683/85: 64 DR 52 (1990)	Art 6		
Fayed v UK 18 EHRR 393 (21/9/1994) #475	Art 6		
Findlay v UK 24 EHRR 221 (25/2/1997) #734	Art 6		
Fox, Campbell & Hartley v UK 13 EHRR 157 (30/8/90) # 223	Art 5		
Friedl v Austria 21 EHRR 83 (31/1/95) #500	Art 8 and 13		
Fressoz v France [1998] EHRLR 497(13/1/1998) 29183/95	Art 10		
Funke v France 16 EHRR 297 (25/2/1993) #393	Art 6 and 8		
Goodwin v UK 22 EHRR 123 (27/3/1996) #610	Art 10		
Gregory v UK 25 EHRR 577 (25/2/1997) #735	Art 6		
Grigoriades v Greece [1998] EHRLR 222 (25/11/1997) # 855	Art 10		
Guerra v Italy [1998] EHRLR 491 (19/2/1998) # 875	Art 8		
Halford v UK 24 EHRR 523 (25/6/1997) #773	Art 8		
Handyside v UK 1 EHRR 737 (7/12/1976) #26	Art 10		
Hentrich v France 18 EHRR 440 (22/9/1994) #477	P1 Art 1		
Hoare v UK [1997] EHRLR 678	Art 10		
Holy Monasteries v Greece 20 EHRR 1 (9/12/94) #492	P1 Art 1		
Hood v UK (18/2/1999)	Art 5 and 6		
Hussain v UK 22 EHRR 1 (21/2/1996) #599	Art 3		
Informationsverein Lentia v Austria 17 EHRR 93 (24/11/1993) #445	Art 10		
Janowski v Poland [1998] EHRLR 495 (3/12/1997) 25716/94	Art 10		
Jersild v Denmark 19 EHRR 1 (23/9/94) #480	Art 10		
Jespers v Belgium App. No. 8403/78, 27 D&R 61	Art 6		
Johnson v UK [1998] EHRLR 224 (24/10/1997) #846	Art 5		
K-F v Germany [1998] EHRLR 228 (27/11/1997) #858	Art 5		
Klass v FRG 2 EHRR 214 A 28 (6/9/1978) #30	Art 8		
Kokkinakis v Greece 17 EHRR 397 (25/5/1993) #408	Art 9		
Kopp v Switzerland [1998] EHRLR 508 (25/3/1998) #891	Art 8		
Kostovski v Netherlands 12 EHRR 434 (20/11/1989) #201	Art 6		
Laino v Italy (18/2/1999) 	Art 6		
Larissis v Greece [1998] EHRLR 505 (24/2/1998) #879	Art 9		
Laskey & ors v UK 24 EHRR 39 (19/2/1997) #730	Art 8		
Launder v UK [1998] EHRLR 337 (8/12/1997) 27279/95	Art 6	
Leander v Sweden 9 EHRR 433 (26/3/1987) #126	Art 8		
Lopez-Ostra v Spain 20 EHRR 277 (9/12/94) #496	Art 8		
Ludi v Switzerland 15 EHRR 173 (15/6/92) #357	Art 6		
Luedicke v Germany 2 EHRR 149 (28/11/1978) #31	Art 6		
MacGregor v UK [1998] EHRLR 354	Art 14		
Mansur v Turkey 20 EHRR 535 (8/6/95) #518	Art 5		
Marckx v Belgium 2 EHRR 330 (13/6/1979) #33	Art 8		
Matthews v UK (18/2/1999) (text of majority decision)	P1 Art 3		
Mathieu-Mohin and anor v Belgium 10 EHRR 1 (2/3/1987) #123	P1 Art 3		
McCann & ors v UK 21 EHRR 97 (27/9/1995) #549	Art 2		
Mcleod v UK (23/9/98) #993	Art 8		
MH v UK [1997] EHRLR 279	Art 6		
Miaihle v France 16 EHRR 332 (25/2/1993) #395	Art 8		
Miloslavsky v UK 20 EHRR 442 (13/7/1995) #520	Art 6 and 10		
Minelli v Switzerland 5 EHRR 554 (25/3/1983) #66	Art 6		
Muller v Switzerland 13 EHRR 212 (24/5/1988) #159	Art 10		
Murray v UK 19 EHRR 193 (28/10/1994) #484	Art 5		
Murray v UK 22 EHRR 29 (8/2/1996) #593	Art 6		
National & Provincial BS & ors v UK 25 EHRR 127 [1998] EHRLR 236 (23/10/1997) #845	P1 Art 1		
Neumeister v Austria 1 EHRR 91 (27/61968) #7	Art 6		
Niemietz v Germany 16 EHRR 97 (16/12/1992) #384	Art 8		
Oberschlick v Austria 25 EHRR 357 [1997] EHRLR 676 (1/7/1997) #783	Art 10		
Osman & Osman v UK (28/10/98) #1083	Art 6	
Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria 19 EHRR 34 (20/9/1994) #474	Art 9		
Podbielski v Poland (30/10/98) #1023	Art 6		
Raninen v Finland 26 EHRR 563 [1998] EHRLR 344 (16/12/1997) #862	Art 5		
Robins v UK 26 EHRR 527 (23/9/1997) #822	Art 6		
Rowe & Davis v UK [1998] EHRLR 92 Application No. 28910/95	Art 6		
Saunders v United Kingdom 23 EHRR 313 (17/12/96) #702	Art 6		
Scarth v UK 26 EHRR CD 154 Application 33745/96 (21/5/1998) Transcript	Art 6		
Schenk v Switzerland 13 EHRR 242 (12/7/1988) #171	Art 6		
Scherer v Switzerland 18 EHRR 276 (25/3/1994) #461	Art 10		
Selmouni v France [1998] EHRLR 510 (11/12/1997) 25803/94	Art 3		
Seven Individuals v Sweden (1982) 29 DR 104	Art 9		
Shahzad v UK [1998] EHRLR 210 (22/10/1997)	Art 6		
Sheffield & Horsham v UK (30/7/98) #946 Times 4/9/98	Art 8 and 14		
Soering v UK 11 EHRR 439 (7/6/1989) #196	Art 3		
Stanford v UK A 282-A (23/2/1994) #453	Art 6		
Styranowski v Poland (30/10/98) #1022	Art 6		
Steel v UK (23/9/98) #992	Art 5 and 10		
Sunday Times v UK 2 EHRR 245 (26/4/1979) #32	Art 10		
Sunday Times (no.2) v UK 14 EHRR 153 (26/11/1991) #285	Art 10		
Sutherland v UK [1998] EHRLR 117 25186/94 (1/7/1997)	Art 8		
T & V v UK [1998] EHRLR 484(6/3/1998) 24724/94 24888/94	Art 3	
Taylor v UK [1998] EHRLR 90(10/9/1997)	Art 7		
Teixeira de Castro v Portugal (9/6/1998) #930	Art 6		
Thynne v UK 13 EHRR 666 (25/10/1990) #232	Art 5		
Tyrer v UK 2 EHRR 1 (25/4/1978) #28	Art 3		
Unterpertinger v Austria 13 EHRR 175 (24/11/1986) # 120	Art 6		
Van Mechelen and ors v Netherlands 25 EHRR 647 (23/4/1997) #755	Art 6		
Welch v UK 20 EHRR 247 (9/2/1995) #502 	Art 7		
Wickramsinghe v UK [1998] EHRLR 338 (9/12/1997)	Art 6		
Wingrove v UK 24 EHRR 1 (25/11/1996) #699	Art 10		
Woningen v The Netherlands 20 EHRR CD1 20641/92	Art 6		
Worm v Austria 25 EHRR 454 (29/8/1997) #801	Art 10		
Wynne v UK 19 EHRR 333 (18/7/1994) # 472	Art 5		
X Ltd and Y v UK (1982) 28 DR 77	Art 10		
Yagci & Sargin v Turkey 20 EHRR 505 (8/6/95) #516	Art 5		
Z v Finland 25 EHRR 371 (25/2/1997) # 736	Art 8		

Appendix B

Extract from ‘Summaries of the Judgments delivered in 1997’
‘Information document prepared by the registry of the Court’

[Index of volume is in the form: 
9.	25.2.97	Gregory v the United Kingdom	page 12]

GREGORY V THE UNITED KINGDOM - 25 February 1997 (Chamber)

Reference	2 December 1995 by the Commission

Judge's decision to deal with an allegation of racial bias in a jury trying a black defendant by means of a redirection rather than a discharge; allegation made in a note passed to the judge following the jury' retirement.

I	Article 6(1) of the Convention

Reiteration of the importance of securing the impartiality of a tribunal including a jury from a subjective as well as an objective point of view.

Subjective bias: the jury note did not constitute proof of actual or subjective bias.

Objective bias: the judge's redirection was clear, detailed and firmly worded - jury instructed to put out of their minds any thoughts of prejudice of any form and to try the case on the evidence alone - no further allegations of racial bias - could be concluded that the judge had offered sufficient guarantees in the circumstances to dispel any objective doubts about the jury's impartiality - discharge of a jury not always required to achieve this aim.

Conclusion: no violation (eight votes to one)

II	Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6

No separate issue arises under this head

Conclusion: No violation (unanimously)

Court's case-law referred to

26.2.1993, Padovani v Italy; 23.4.1996, Remli v France; 10.6.96, Pullar v the United Kingdom

Appendix C

Subject Indexes to the Judgments of the European Court

This is a list that sets out indexed topics, Article by Article and cross-references all cases that refer to the topic.

The excerpt below is skeletal - to show the form of the index

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
1.	Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.	There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
02/10/98

List of judgments appears first.
Each case is given a sequential number, and the date of the judgment is always given.

6 Use of languages in education in Belgium, 23.7.1968
12 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp, 18.6.1971

82 Malone, 2.8.1984

269 Klaas, 22.9.1993

etc

Case references within the index are inserted under each sub-topic.
Cases are referred to by their sequential number, and then references are ‘pin-pointed’ by paragraph number.

GENERAL	PARA 1	PARA 2	MISC	Decisions	
Importance of the right secured
5:9(8)
6:19,36	‘Everyone..’
•	Lawyers
28: 19(36)
•	Prisoners
•	Illegitimate children
•	Homosexuals	In general	Direct applicability	Majority
•	Violation
•	No violation
•	Other	
Object and purpose	Content of the right secured
•	‘Respect’
18:33(5),35(8)
•	‘private life’
28:21(41)
•	‘family life’
•	correspondence	Interpretation	With other provisions
•	Convention
•	Protocols	Dissents	
Applicability of Article 8
•	civil status
•	immigration
•	montoring telephone conversations
•	air traffic noise	Positive or negative obligations	Limitations - restrictions	Other international instruments
•	CoE convention on private life and databanks
•	Euro convention on legal status of children out of wedlock		
Evolutive interpretation	‘Interference by public authority’
•	Secrecy of correspondence
•	prisoners' letters - visits
•	psychiatric hospital	‘In accordance with the law’
•	In general
•	In accordance with
•	Law	Case law of other international courts		
		Purpose of the interference
•	In general
•	national Security
•	Public Safety
•	Economic well-being	Travaux préparatoires		
		Necessary in a democratic society
•	In general
•	necessary
•	pressing social need
•	proportionate
•	democratic society	Misc		
		Margin of appreciation			
		Court's supervision			

Appendix D1: Excerpt from Beagle Website - With Links
See <http://www.beagle.org.uk/cpr/crulesfr.htm> click on ‘Part 8 - Alternative Procedure For Claims’.

Go to Slides

SEARCH	

Table of Contents
Mini Index

FEE Guides: Supreme Court Fees Order 1999 County Court Fees Order 1999

PROTOCOLS:     PI PAP Clinical Dispute PAP PD 

CofA PD

Insolvency PD

Part 1 -  Overriding objective 

Part 2 - Application and Interpretation of the Rules PD
 
Part 3 - The Court's case Management Powers PD

Part 4 - Forms PD 

Part 5 - Court Documents PD 

Part 6 - Service of Documents PD

Part 7 - How to Start Proceedings - The Claim Form PD  CCA ProdC Taxes

Part 8 - Alternative Procedure For Claims PD Schedule Rules

Part 9 - Responding to Particulars of Claim - General 

Part 10- Acknowledgment of Service PD 

Part 11 - Disputing the Court's Jurisdiction

Part 12 - Default Judgment PD

Part 13 - Setting Aside or Varying Default Judgment 
Part 14 - Admissions PD
Part 15 - Defence and Reply PD
Part 16 - Statements of Case PD
Part 17 - Amendments to Statements of Case PD
Part 18 - Further Information PD
Part 19 - Addition and Substitution of Parties PD
Part 20 - Counterclaims and Other Additional Claims PD
Part 21 - Children and Patients PD
Part 22 - Statements of Truth PD
Part 23 - General rules about Applications for Court Orders PD
Part 24 - Summary Judgment PD
Part 25 - Interim Remedies (Acc/Inq) (INJ)  (Payments)
Part 26 - Case Management - Preliminary Stage PD
Part 27 - The Small Claims Track   PD
Part 28 -The Fast Track  PD
Part 29 - The Multi-Track PD
Part 30 - Transfer PD
Part 31 - Disclosure and Inspection of Documents   PD 
Part 32- Evidence  PD
Part 33 - Miscellaneous Rules about Evidence
Part 34 - Depositions and Court Attendance by Witnesses  PD 
Part 35 - Experts and Assessors PD
Part 36 - Offers to Settle and Payments into Court PD
Part 37 - Miscellaneous Provisions about Payments into Court PD
Part 38 - Discontinuance
Part 39 - Miscellaneous Provisions relating to Hearings  PD   Court sittings
Part 40 - Judgments and Orders (Ac/Inq) (Jud/Orders)  (Struct Setts) 
Part 41 - Provisional Damages PD 
Part 42 - Change of solicitor PD 
COSTS 

1/2/99 PD	Excel 97 spreadsheet form	
General and all costs PDs	Forms schedule (PDF on SCTO site) 	

Part 43  - Scope of Costs Rules and Definitions PD
Part 44  - General Rules about Costs   PD 
Part 45 - Fixed Costs  PD
Part 46 - Fast track trial costs PD 
Part 47 - Procedure for detailed assessment of costs and default provisions PD 
Part 48 - Costs - special cases PD 
Part 49 - Specialist proceedings
Con Probate Companies TCC TCC (pdf on CS site)  Commercial Patents Admiralty Arbitration Mercantile 
Part 50 - Application of the Schedules
Part 51 - Transitional arrangements PD
Glossary
SCHEDULE 1- Former ‘RSC’ Orders - use Ctrl-F to search long files

RSC Order 10	Service of Originating Process: General Provisions	
RSC Order 11 PD	Service of Process, etc., Out of the Jurisdiction	
RSC Order 15	Causes of Action, Counterclaims and Parties	
RSC Order 17	Interpleader	
RSC Order 23	Security for Costs	
RSC Order 30	Receivers	
RSC Order 31 PD	Sales, etc. of Land by Order of Court: Conveyancing Counsel of the Court	
RSC Order 44	Proceedings Under Judgments and Orders: Chancery Division	
RSC Order 45	Enforcement of Judgments and Orders: General	
RSC Order 46	Writs of Execution: General	
RSC Order 47	Writs of Fieri Facias	
RSC Order 48	Examination of Judgment Debtor, etc.	
RSC Order 49	Garnishee Proceedings	
RSC Order 50	Charging Orders, Stop Orders, etc.	
RSC Order 51	Receivers: Equitable Execution	
RSC Order 52 PD	Committal	
RSC Order 53	Applications for Judicial Review	
RSC Order 54	Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus	
RSC Order 55	Appeals to High Court From Court, Tribunal or Person: General	
RSC Order 56	Appeals, etc., to High Court by Case Stated: General	
RSC Order 57	Divisional Court Proceedings, etc.: Supplementary Provisions	
RSC Order 58	Appeals From Masters, Registrars, Referees and Judges	
RSC Order 59	Appeals to the Court of Appeal	
RSC Order 60	Appeals to Court of Appeal From the Restrictive Practices Court	
RSC Order 61	Appeals From Tribunals to Court of Appeal by Case Stated	
RSC Order 62	Costs	
RSC Order 64	Sittings, Vacations and office Hours	
RSC Order 69	Service of Foreign Process	
RSC Order 70	Obtaining Evidence for Foreign Courts, etc.	
RSC Order 71	Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments and Enforcement of European Community Judgments and Recommendations etc. Under the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Act 1982	
RSC Order 74	Applications and Appeals Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995	
RSC Order 77	Proceedings by and Against the Crown	
RSC Order 79	Criminal Proceedings	
RSC Order 81	Partners	
RSC Order 82	Defamation Claims	
RSC Order 85	Administration and Similar Actions	
RSC Order 87	Debenture Holders' Claims : Receiver's Register	
RSC Order 88	Mortgage Claims	
RSC Order 91	Revenue Proceedings	
RSC Order 92	Lodgment, Investment, etc., of Funds in Court: Chancery Division	
RSC Order 93	Applications and Appeals to High Court Under Various Acts: Chancery Division	
RSC Order 94	Applications and Appeals to High Court Under Various Acts: Queen's Bench Division	
RSC Order 95	Bills of Sale Acts 1878 and 1882 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1967	
RSC Order 96	The Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966	
RSC Order 97	The Landlord and Tenant Acts 1927, 1954 and 1987	
RSC Order 98	Local Government Finance Act 1982	
RSC Order 99	Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975	
RSC Order 101	The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943	
RSC Order 106	Proceedings Relating to Solicitors: the Solicitors Act, 1974	
RSC Order 108	Proceedings Relating to Charities: the Charities Act 1993	
RSC Order 109	The Administration of Justice Act 1960	
RSC Order 110	Environmental Control Proceedings	
RSC Order 111	The Social Security Administration Act 1992	
RSC Order 112	Applications for Use of Blood Tests in Determining Paternity	
RSC Order 113	Summary Proceedings for Possession of Land	
RSC Order 114	References to the European Court	
RSC Order 115	Confiscation and Forfeiture in Connection With Criminal Proceedings	
RSC Order 116	The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996	

Schedule 2
Former ‘CCR’ Orders. Use Ctrl-F to search long files

CCR Order 1	Citation, Application and Interpretation	
CCR Order 3	Commencement of Proceedings	
CCR Order 4	Venue for Bringing Proceedings	
CCR Order 5	Causes of Action and Parties	
CCR Order 6	Particulars of Claim	
CCR Order 7	Service of Documents	
CCR Order 13	Applications and Orders in the Course of Proceedings	
CCR Order 16	Transfer of Proceedings	
CCR Order 19	Reference to European Court	
CCR Order 22	Judgments and Orders	
CCR Order 24	Summary Proceedings for the Recovery of Land	
CCR Order 25	Enforcement of Judgments and Orders: General	
CCR Order 26	Warrants of Execution, Delivery and Possession	
CCR Order 27	Attachment of Earnings	
CCR Order 28	Judgment Summonses	
CCR Order 29 PD	Committal for Breach of Order or Undertaking	
CCR Order 30	Garnishee Proceedings	
CCR Order 31	Charging Orders	
CCR Order 33	Interpleader Proceedings	
CCR Order 34	Penal and Disciplinary Provisions	
CCR Order 35	Enforcement of County Court Judgments Outside England and Wales	
CCR Order 37	Rehearing, Setting Aside and Appeal from District Judge	
CCR Order 38	Costs	
CCR Order 39	Administration Orders	
CCR Order 42	Proceedings by and Against the Crown	
CCR Order 43	The Landlord and Tenant Acts 1927, 1954, 1985 and 1987	
CCR Order 44	The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986	
CCR Order 45	The Representation of the People Act 1983	
CCR Order 46	The Legitimacy Act 1976	
CCR Order 47	Domestic and Matrimonial Proceedings	
CCR Order 48B	Enforcement of Parking Penalties Under the Road Traffic Act 1991	
CCR Order 48D	Enforcement of Fixed Penalties Under the Road Traffic(Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) Regulations 1997	
CCR Order 49	Miscellaneous Statutes	

21/04/1999

CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
PART 8 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMS
See also Practice Direction 8A, Practice Direction 8B

    
    CONTENTS OF THIS PART
    Types of claim in which Part 8 procedure may be followed             Rule 8.1 
        Contents of the claim form                                                            Rule 8.2 
        Acknowledgment of service                                                          Rule 8.3 
        Consequence of not filing an acknowledgment of service            Rule 8.4 
        Filing and serving written evidence                                               Rule 8.5 
        Evidence - general                                                                         Rule 8.6 
        Part 20 claims                                                                                Rule 8.7 
        Procedure where defendant objects to use of Part 8 procedure    Rule 8.8 
        Modifications to the general rules                                                Rule 8.9 

    
     
    TYPES OF CLAIM IN WHICH PART 8 PROCEDURE MAY BE FOLLOWED
    8.1(1)The Part 8 procedure is the procedure set out in this 
                Part. 
        (2)A claimant may use the Part 8 procedure where - 
                he seeks the court's decision on a question which is 
                    unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact; or 
                    paragraph (6) applies. 
        (3)The court may at any stage order the claim to continue as if 
                the claimant had not used the Part 8 procedure and, if it does 
                so, the court may give any directions it considers appropriate. 
        (4)Paragraph (2) does not apply if a practice direction provides 
                that the Part 8 procedure may not be used in relation to the 
                type of claim in question. 
        (5)Where the claimant uses the Part 8 procedure he may not 
                obtain default judgment under Part 12. 
        (6)A rule or practice direction may, in relation to a specified 
                type of proceedings - 
                require or permit the use of the Part 8 procedure; and 
                    disapply or modify any of the rules set out in this Part as 
                    they apply to those proceedings. 
        (Rule 8.9 provides for other modifications to the general rules 
                where the Part 8 procedure is being used) 

    CONTENTS OF THE CLAIM FORM
    8.2Where the claimant uses the Part 8 procedure the claim form 
                must state - 
        that this Part applies; 
                      
                    (i) the question which the claimant wants the court to 
                        decide; or 
                        the remedy which the claimant is seeking and the legal 
                        basis for the claim to that remedy; 
                        if the claim is being made under an enactment, what that 
                    enactment is; 
                    if the claimant is claiming in a representative capacity, 
                    what that capacity is; and 
                    if the defendant is sued in a representative capacity, what 
                    that capacity is. 
        (Part 22 provides for the claim form to be verified by a 
                statement of truth) 
                (Rule 7.5 provides for service of the claim form) 

    ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
    8.3(1)The defendant must - 
                file an acknowledgment of service in the relevant practice 
                    form not more than 14 days after service of the claim form; 
                    and 
                    serve the acknowledgment of service on the claimant and any 
                    other party. 
        (2)The acknowledgment of service must state - 
                whether the defendant contests the claim; and 
                    if the defendant seeks a different remedy from that set out 
                    in the claim form, what that remedy is. 
        (3)The following rules of Part 10 (acknowledgment of service) 
                apply - 
                rule 10.3(2) (exceptions to the period for filing an 
                    acknowledgment of service); and 
                    rule 10.5 (contents of acknowledgment of service). 
        (4)Part 11 (disputing the court's jurisdiction) applies subject 
                to the modification that in rule 11(4)(a) and (5)(b) (time limit 
                for application disputing court's jurisdiction) references to 
                the period for filing a defence are treated as if they were 
                references to a period of 14 days from the filing of an 
                acknowledgment of service. 

    CONSEQUENCE OF NOT FILING AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
    8.4(1)This rule applies where - 
                the defendant has failed to file an acknowledgment of 
                    service; and 
                    the time period for doing so has expired. 
        (2)The defendant may attend the hearing of the claim but may not 
                take part in the hearing unless the court gives permission. 

    FILING AND SERVING WRITTEN EVIDENCE
    8.5(1)The claimant must file any written evidence on which he 
                intends to rely when he files his claim form. 
        (2)The claimant's evidence must be served on the defendant with 
                the claim form. 
        (3)A defendant who wishes to rely on written evidence must file 
                it when he files his acknowledgment of service. 
        (4)If he does so, he must also, at the same time, serve a copy 
                of his evidence on the other parties. 
        (5)The claimant may, within 14 days of service of the 
                defendant's evidence on him, file further written evidence in 
                reply. 
        (6)If he does so, he must also, within the same time limit, 
                serve a copy of his evidence on the other parties. 
        (7)The claimant may rely on the matters set out in his claim 
                form as evidence under this rule if the claim form is verified 
                by a statement of truth. 

    EVIDENCE - GENERAL
    8.6(1)No written evidence may be relied on at the hearing of the 
                claim unless - 
                it has been served in accordance with rule 8.5; or 
                    the court gives permission. 
        (2)The court may require or permit a party to give oral evidence 
                at the hearing. 
        (3)The court may give directions requiring the attendance for 
                cross-examination (GL) of a witness who has given written 
                evidence. 
        (Rule 32.1 contains a general power for the court to control 
                evidence) 

    PART 20 CLAIMS
    8.7Where the Part 8 procedure is used, Part 20 (counterclaims 
                and other additional claims) applies except that a party may not 
                make a Part 20 claim (as defined by rule 20.2) without the 
                court's permission. 

    PROCEDURE WHERE DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO USE OF THE PART 8
    PROCEDURE
    8.8(1)Where the defendant contends that the Part 8 procedure 
                should not be used because - 
                there is a substantial dispute of fact; and 
                    the use of the Part 8 procedure is not required or permitted 
                    by a rule or practice direction, 
                    he must state his reasons when he files his acknowledgment of 
                service. 
        (Rule 8.5 requires a defendant who wishes to rely on written 
                evidence to file it when he files his acknowledgment of service) 
                
        (2)When the court receives the acknowledgment of service and any 
                written evidence it will give directions as to the future 
                management of the case. 
        (Rule 8.1(3) allows the court to make an order that the claim 
                continue as if the claimant had not used the Part 8 procedure) 

    MODIFICATIONS TO THE GENERAL RULES
    8.9Where the Part 8 procedure is followed - 
        provision is made in this Part for the matters which must be 
                    stated in the claim form and the defendant is not required 
                    to file a defence and therefore - 
                    Part 16 (statements of case) does not apply; 
                        Part 15 (defence and reply) does not apply; 
                        any time limit in these Rules which prevents the parties 
                        from taking a step before a defence is filed does not 
                        apply; 
                        the requirement under rule 7.8 to serve on the defendant 
                        a form for defending the claim does not apply; 
                        the claimant may not obtain judgment by request on an 
                    admission and therefore - 
                    rules 14.4 to 14.7 do not apply; and 
                        the requirement under rule 7.8 to serve on the defendant 
                        a form for admitting the claim does not apply; and 
                        the claim shall be treated as allocated to the multi-track 
                    and therefore Part 26 does not apply. 

    

     Return to the Civil Procedure Rules Index page 

Appendix E: Canada

The Canadian Judicial Council issued proposed Standards for the Preparation, Distribution and Citation of Canadian Judgments in Electronic Form in May 1996. It included the following:

Elements of a Citation Standard for Electronically Distributed Judgments
Case citations must be standardized and must contain enough information to allow for ready retrieval of the decision. The first aspect of the standard is to determine what elements should appear in the citation. After that, it remains to determine the order of those elements, and then how those elements should be used. This Standard attempts as far as possible to be consistent with existing standards of citation. As noted above, a unique file name for every judgment in Canada would allow for a vendor‑neutral citation scheme. Until that Standard is adopted, however, reference still needs to be made to specific publishers, databases and file names or numbers.

Online Legal Publishers In many ways judgments retrieved from online legal publishers are no different than judgments photocopied from printed law reports. The distinction between a ‘reported’ and an ‘unreported’ decision is starting to break down, especially where the online publisher uses the same source material as the the printed version (for example, consider the Ontario Reports database on QuickLaw). It is recommended that judgments retrieved from online legal publishers be treated consistently with existing standards and in a method analogous to that of a printed law report citation:

Style of cause (All italics, including the v. or c.)
Year of decision (four digits, in square brackets)
Database (abbreviation)
Decision number assigned by vendor (may be the same as file or docket number)
Online publisher
Court

Pinpoint reference if any

Examples:
Hugh v. Roy, [1993] O.J. No. 422 (Q.L.) (Gen. Div.)
Laroche v. Rivard, [1994] R.J.Q. 104 (SOQUIJ) (C.A.)

Pinpoint References
Where a pinpoint citation is desired, and the citation is to a judgment with paragraph numbering, the proper form is:

Larson v. Regal, [1993] F.C.J. No. 210 (Q.L.) (C.A.) at para. 46.

Bulletin Boards, Internet
For judgments posted to an electronic BBS (bulletin board system) or Internet site, the standard proposes a form consistent with the citation of an ‘unreported’ judgment. Thus the following elements should appear:

Style of cause (all italics, including the v. or c.)
Date (DD Month YYYY) (e.g. 23 January 1993)
Court file or docket number
System: Address or file name
Court (abbreviation)
Pinpoint reference if any

Examples:
Hugh v. Roy (23 January 1993) Docket No. F93/09819 (Ontario Government BBS: 9309819E.txt) (Ont. Gen. Div.) at para. 76.
London Life v. Sloan (2 March 1994) Docket No. 94/06 (Internet: http://www.droit.umontreal.ca/word/sloan.en.word) (B.C.C.A.) at paras. 12‑14.
Lamb v. Horn (13 November 1996) Docket No. 667516a (Internet: ftp://ftp.inforamp.net/~gelkin/AQB23/667516A.html) (Alta. Q.B.) at para. 118.

Canadian Supreme Court decisions (S.C.R.) since 1989 are available on the Internet through a joint project between the Supreme Court of Canada and the LexUM team of the Centre de Recherche en Droit Public at the University of Montreal. They are fully searchable.

Appendix F: Australia

The Australian High Court incorporated paragraph numbers into the body of judgments with the delivery of the first judgment in 1998. It gave a further guidance on the use of ‘medium neutral’ citation in the following terms:

Coupled with this initiative the Court will allow the citation of High Court decisions in a ‘medium neutral’ way where the decision itself has not been published in the printed law reports. In proceedings before the Court, the Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) remain the required citation for the Court’s published judgments.

The Court went on to illustrate how such Medium Neutral citation would look

Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1988] HCA 70 at [26]

which is a reference to paragraph 26 of the 70th decision of the High Court of Australia in 1988. 

Readers will be familiar with the extensive electronic library of Australian legal resources.

Appendix G: America

The American Bar Association resolved in 1996

All jurisdictions adopt a system for official citation to case reports that is equally effective for printed case reports and for case reports electronically published on computer disks or network services, that system consisting of the following key elements: 

A. The court should include the distinctive sequential decision number described in paragraph C below in each decision at the time it is made available to the public. 

B. The court should number the paragraphs in the decision.

C. The court should require all case authorities to be cited by stating the year, a designator of the court, the sequential number of the decision, and where reference is to specific material within the decision, the paragraph number at which that material appears. 

D. Until electronic publications of case reports become generally available to and commonly relied upon by courts and lawyers in the jurisdiction, the court should strongly encourage parallel citations, in addition to the primary citation described in paragraph C above, to commonly used printed case reports. When a cited authority is not available in those printed case reports, the court should require counsel to provide printed copies to opposing counsel and to the court. The parallel citation should only be to the first page of the report and parallel pinpoint citations should not be required.

E. The standard form of citation, shown for a decision in a federal court of appeals, should be: 

Smith v. Jones, 1996 5Cir 15, &18, 22 F.3d 955. 

1996 is the year of the decision; 5Cir refers to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit; 15 indicates that this citation is to the 15th decision released by the court in the year; 18 is the paragraph number where the material referred to is located, and the remainder is the parallel citation to the volume and page in the printed case report where the decision may also be found.

Adoption of Uniform Citation - or permission to use it - has taken place in 11 states. It has been ‘considered’ on the 6th Circuit and in Florida.