Q: In relation to PD51 para 19 (automatic stay of proceedings which have not come before a judge between 26 April 1999 and 25 April 2000), will the court of its own initiative strike out the proceedings and award costs at some stage or is it essential for the defendant to make an application? On any application, what considerations will figure?A: In the absence of something being done by the parties, the case will not come to the attention of a judge so no 'own initiative' order will be made.

The considerations on an opposed application to remove the stay and an opposed application to strike out seem to us to be identical, that is the Birkett v James arguments as modified by Biguzzi and the line of authorities which have followed it.Q: My local district judge has returned a legal aid bill saying that he wants me to redraw it showing work done before 26 April 1999 and work done after 26 April 1999 separately.

The case started in 1998 and final judgment was given in January 2000: it is a family case.

I have looked in all the rules and regulations but I cannot find any requirement that I should do this.

Other courts have not required it.

Am I missing something?A: Yes.

When CPR part 44 (which deals with the assessment of costs) was applied to family cases at the same time as the new civil rules were introduced, it brought with it the principle of proportionality.

When assessing costs, therefore, the judge can apply that principle to any work done after 26 April 1999 but he cannot apply it to work done before that date.

That is probably why your district judge wants the bill split.

You will not find this in any rule or regulation which is why practice can vary from judge to judge.

It is also worth noting that with the new ancillary relief scheme which came into force on 5 June 2000, proportionality is applied as a matter of principle to the proceedings themselves.

Although there may be little scope for it where the financial position is complicated, it could be different if there are very few assets or even a negative equity.-- The answers given are not authoritative to the extent that they s hould be considered binding on any court.

The panel will not enter into correspondence.E-mail your questions to: steve.jones@lawsociety.org.uk