Q Suppose a non-molestation applicant is acting in person and obtains an order for alternative service of the application or order made (or both) on the respondent, whether directly by post or indirectly through a third party. Is the applicant still prevented from effecting service themselves under the Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017? Also, what is the practical effect of the applicant serving in breach of the prohibition? Would purported service be a nullity?
A The new provisions do not prevent service by the applicant by other means, where permitted. So if the court makes an order for service by an alternative method allowing the applicant to serve by post, service in accordance with that order will be effective. In general, though, service by a third party is to be preferred.
Personal service by an applicant in breach of the provisions does not invalidate service: see FPR 4.7. The court may remedy the defect (eg by dispensing with service), but is unlikely to do so unless satisfied that the respondent has actually received the papers. In addition, a non-molestation order will often include a provision
