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October 2014 practice guidance on the duration of ex parte orders but with non-molestation orders being its focus has been replaced by more workable guidance issued by him on 18 January 2017 (see www.judiciary.gov.uk ) which practitioners should heed when drafting.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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll