header-logo header-logo

10 February 2017
Issue: 7733 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 10 February 2017

More paper for non-moles; destroying a buffet; & Court of Appeal fix

PG FOR NON-MOLES

The President’s 13 October 2014 practice guidance on the duration of ex parte orders but with non-molestation orders being its focus has been replaced by more workable guidance issued by him on 18 January 2017 (see www.judiciary.gov.uk ) which practitioners should heed when drafting. Gone is the idea that the expiration of the ex parte order should coincide with the return date (say six hours apart) because this potentially exposed the non-molestation applicant to harm if the respondent failed to appear on the return date and could not be served with the new order or acquainted with its terms before expiry of the ex parte. Also ditched is the suggestion that the respondent be directed to notify the court within a specified period whether they intended to turn up to oppose the continuation of the order and that, in default, the court might deal with the return hearing on paper.

So now:

  • The ex parte must have a fixed
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll