LEGAL AID QUIRKSJon Williams thinks that in concluding that reg 3(4)(c)(111) of the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991 gives a costs officer power to allow more than 51.75 for the costs of bill preparation in a family case which has 'exceptional circumstances,' I may be 'a little confused' (see [2001] Gazette, 25 January, 18).

The point I tried to make was that reg 3(4)(c)(111) refers to 'exceptional circumstances of the case', whereas (1) and (11) refer to the 'exceptional competence' or 'expedition with which the work was done.'If you can show any exceptional circumstances of the substantive case, including a fee-earner who is on the Children Act panel, the 51.75 can be removed.

This argument succeeded in an appeal heard in Bristol on 15 December 2000, when the circuit judge held that 'the test is not exceptional circumstances in the preparation of the bill, but exceptional circumstances of the case.' Of course, the costs officer still has a discretion whether to remove the cap, but removal is surely encouraged by the Court of Appeal's finding in A Local Authority v A Mother & Child (20 December 2000) that, in principle, 'the costs of preparing a bill are now to be considered allowable.'The Bristol appeal raised two other curious points.

First, it had to be made under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, as part 52 CPR does not apply to family cases, and the previous appeal code in the Practice Direction Supplementing Part 47 CPR was revoked as of 2 May 2000.

There was no need to seek leave to appeal from the district judge.

Second, because reg 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 remains tied to that revoked code, you may appeal against a legal aid detailed assessment without getting the consent of the LSC or notifying the LCD.

Make the most of the opportunities these quirks in the rules allow while they last.

Peter Burdge, Maritza Legal Services Ltd, Clevedon, Somerset