Standard orders

Standard orders

Standard orders project

The President of the Family Division appointed a drafting group in 2013 under the leadership of Mostyn J to produce a comprehensive set of orders that it was intended would, in due course, become mandatory in the Family Court and the Family Division. The President's rationale behind the project was to avoid the time and money that is wasted in the process of drafting orders that could, and therefore should, be standardised. For details of the background and history of the standard orders project, see: Standard orders—general principles—History of the standard orders project

On 17 May 2023, Mr Justice Peel, the judge in charge of standard orders, announced that, with the authority of the President of the Family Division and following the review process and consultation period, the standard orders were updated to reflect changes in law, practice and procedure and to achieve consistency. See: LNB News 17/05/2023 88.

Updated house rules were also published by Peel J on 17 May 2023 to be read alongside the standard orders. The house rules set out:

•
the content of the orders, including recitals (paras 3–7)

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Budget 2025—Private Client analysis

Private Client analysis: A summary of the key personal tax announcements made in the Chancellor’s Budget on 26 November 2025.

Family weekly highlights—20 November 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, on the most effective way for the family courts to engage with cases where there are allegations of domestic abuse, the Lady Chief Justice’s recently published annual report and the Law Commission’s proposed new framework to modernise contempt of court laws. Analysis of dealing with beneficial interests in the family home is set out. Recent judgments on the adoption of children born under surrogacy arrangements, applications for leave to pursue financial remedy proceedings following a foreign divorce and applications to set aside return orders under the 1980 Hague Convention are also considered. Two flowcharts and a checklist have been added on reporting restriction order applications in family proceedings and giving advance notice to the media of a reporting restriction order application. A subtopic dedicated to maintenance payable via the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has also been added, including a new Practice Note on changing and challenging a maintenance calculation or other CMS decision.

Third party interests—dealing with beneficial interests in the family home (A v N (R intervening))

Family analysis: This case addresses third-party beneficial interests in the family home within financial remedy proceedings. Following a 29-year marriage, the court considered the wife's mother's (R) claim to a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home based on her financial contributions. While R's initial £130,000 contribution was deemed a gift, her subsequent funding of an annexe created a beneficial interest. The court awarded R 12% of the property's value and ordered its sale, providing a six-point checklist for dealing with third-party interests in the context of orders for sale. The case highlights the increasing prevalence of parental property investment and emphasises the importance of addressing third-party interests early in proceedings, including their consideration in nuptial agreements and the distinct costs implications for such disputes. Practical implications written by Laurie Kershaw of JMW Solicitors.

Law Commission introduces new framework to modernise contempt of court laws

The Law Commission has published recommendations for a modernised framework governing contempt of court, aimed at addressing the challenges posed by online communications and digital media. The proposed reforms introduce four distinct categories of contempt, replacing the existing civil–criminal distinction. The new structure seeks to clarify the standards applicable to judicial conduct during trials, the enforcement of court orders, and instances involving disruptive or prejudicial publications during active proceedings—now defined as commencing from the time of charge.