If my case arose under the old rules, and third party or another procedure would be more cost effective, is there any argument that the new rules may apply?
In http://newmcrules.blogspot.com/2010/12/ever-changing-legal-field.html the opinion was referred to that any cause of action which arose under the old rules, would have to be dealt with under the new rules.
However the point is made that the purpose of the new rules is in line with the constitution whereas the old ones might have “repugnant” aspects which would mean that the Interpretation Act is excluded by the intention of the rules drafter. The opinion is then expressed that the old rules were not repugnant and should be interpreted in line with the Constitution. If the latter is incorrect and a court were to be persuaded of the opposite, then the new rules would apply also to old cases.
Also consider that rule 55(4)(b) indicates that the court has jurisdiction to make orders to make orders for directions as to procedure. Read this with rule 1(2) which expressly states that the rules are to be applied to facilitate expeditious handling of disputes and minimization of costs involved and your case to apply new rules to old matters is strengthened (despite legal opinions and court circulars to the contrary.)
