This along with a word limit to new laws (1 page), and version control, so that instead of adding 100 pages amending 1000 random clauses, we, you know actually amend the document.
Assuming this limit to be practicable (which I doubt; consider complex subjects like corporations law) it would have the effect of giving the judiciary more power. Such succinct laws would need considerable interpretation. I note that bad common-law precedents are a problem as well as bad legislation. Shorter laws don't help this situation. Nor does a more powerful judiciary.
The word limit would or one page rule, would not work out as an absolute in practise. But it would be nice as a guide.
The version control is a very good idea that might actually work in practise. At least from a technical point of view. I don't know whether some people actually prefer the old system of amending.
If it is a rule, it's a rule. There is no reason why every law could not be broken down into one page. Right now ( in the US) we have these massive changes that are encompassing thousands of new rules or modifications to existing rules.
This is a bad idea for the same reason that pushing massive untested changesets into an application would be a bad idea. Incremental, atomic changes that could be revoked is a much better practice on nearly every front (except for maintenance of the power of politicians)
That's why making the one page rule a rule of honour instead of a formal rule might help. Because you want people following the spirit of the rule instead of its letter.