header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 February 2017
Issue: 7733 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 10 February 2017

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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October 2014 practice guidance on the duration of ex parte orders but with non-molestation orders being its focus has been replaced by more workable guidance issued by him on 18 January 2017 (see www.judiciary.gov.uk ) which practitioners should heed when drafting.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

Read All
Sponsored by
Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll