Q: I have a number of cases currently subject to directions under the old CCR and which have the potential to be stayed under CPR PD51 para 19.

In order to avoid a stay, is it sufficient that an application for directions is issued though not heard before 25 April 2000 in a way analogous to the position that prevailed in relation to CCR Order 17, r 11? Further, while para 19 provides for a case to come before a judge 'on paper', what if the court administration is such that the case is not actually put before the judge as asked? Would it be sufficient if an application was issued prior to 25 April 2000?A: As we know, CPR PD51 para 19(1) says that -- save in respect of four categories of case set out at para 19(3) -- old pre-26 April 1999 cases are stayed if they have not come before a judge, at a hearing or on paper, by 25 April 2000.

The only safe advice to give is that the judge must have seen the case and made whatever orders are appropriate before the cut-off date.

The questioner no doubt has in mind the well-known cases under CCR Order 17, r 11 of Bannister v SGB plc [1997] 4 All ER 129 and Ferreira v American Embassy Employees Association [1996] 1 WLR 536.In Ferreira, the Court of Appeal held that an application for an extension of time, if issued before but heard after the expiration of the 15 months period allowed under the automatic directions regime to apply to fix a date for trial, by implication contained in the alternative an application to fix a date for trial.

The result was that it did not matter when the application to extend was actually heard.But beware.

Decisions, even on identical wording under the RSC or CCR, will not necessarily be followed when interpreting the CPR (Natwest Factors Ltd v Sebastion Arbis, 1 November 1999 Hart J).

The introduction of the CPR has changed everything: it has introduced a new procedural code.

It would be unwise to assume that previous judicial interpretation still holds good.The only safe step is to ensure the file actually gets before a judge by 25 April 2000 and our view is that it is insufficient to merely have the file actioned within the court office.

The judge and not a member of the court staff has to see the file.

But the task should not be vast.

Write to the court to have the file considered by the judge and for the judge to direct that the CPR are now to apply and that allocation questionnaires are to be filed by a date he directs.Because some judges may well require an application notice seeking directions to be issued, write immediately and thereby give time for the necessary to be done if your judge takes that approach.Q: I read with interest the panel's view on CPR PD51 para 19(1).

Does the panel believe that the problem of a stay can be overcome by agreement between the parties that they will consent to the lifting of the stay and/or will not take issue with para 19(1) so avoiding an order before 25 April 2000? I have a case where although no steps have been taken in proceedings since November 1998 there are and continue to be extensive 'without prejudice' negotiations.

Is it not in either party's interest for there to be a case management conference?A: No.

Where the practice direction says that proceedings shall be stayed if the case has not come before a judge, then it is not open to the parties to agree otherwise.

No one wants to return to the CPR Order 17, r 11 days.

And e ven if the parties agreed that the stay should be lifted, a judge might disagree.In your particular case, you could write in to the court asking for the judge to direct that the CPR now apply but that the case be stayed under CPR r 26.4.

Initially, at least, the stay will only be for one month but further and lengthier stays might thereafter be obtained under r 26.4(3).

By this route, at least the court retains some case management control; and the risk of a negligence action is avoided.

All by the cost of a couple of letters.However, the point must be made that the continuance of 'without prejudice' negotiations is not now seen as an automatic reason to delay the parallel preparation for trial beyond one month.

Extensions would need to be justified by the case having features taking it out of the normal run.

This is part of the sea-change which occurred on 26 April 1999.Parties have been allowed one year to 'change gear' as regards old cases but they must expect the philosophy of the new regime to be progressively applied in the run up to 26 April 2000.Q: If a case is stayed under PD51 para 19 and one party has money in court pursuant to part 36, will it be possible for that party to apply to have the funds paid out of court (or to withdraw the payment) without first applying to lift the stay or will the party have to make two applications (ie one to lift the stay and, if that is successful, one for consent to pay out or withdraw the money in court)?A: There can be little doubt that only one application is required.

The defendant merely needs to apply for permission to withdraw the monies in court.

He actually would not want to apply to have the stay lifted.Whether the claimant responds with a cross-application under r 3.9 -- supported by evidence in the form of a witness statement with a statement of truth attached -- to have the stay removed, is another matter.Q: The claimant makes a part 36 offer at an early stage in a personal injury case.

It is ignored by the defendant and matters proceed.

The value of the claim escalates to the extent that the earlier part 36 offer is easily going to be exceeded at assessment.

The defendant then writes accepting the part 36 offer out of time, but states that he will pay the claimant's costs and the interest penalties on costs and damages that have accrued by late acceptance.

The claimant obviously does not want to conclude his claim for this amount.

Is the claimant bound by his part 36 offer?A While every case will ultimately turn on its own facts, a hefty dose of the plain commonsense found in part 1 of the CPR would not go amiss.

Remember r 1.1(1): the overriding objective of the new rules is to enable the courts to deal with cases justly.

This would suggest that the claimant should not be bound by his out of date part 36 offer.

But more fool him for not withdrawing it.One course open to the claimant is to refuse to agree to the defendant accepting the out of date part 36 offer out of time.

That refusal would force the defendant to apply for permission under r 36.12(2).

At the inevitable hearing the claimant would be able to advance his reasons for withdrawing the part 36 offer or for substituting a revised part 36 offer instead.