This Practice Note sets out the requirements and procedure to be followed when applying for a variation of a non-molestation order or an occupation order under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) by either the respondent against whom the order was granted or the applicant to the original application. It explains the requirements in relation to service of the application and the order. Under FLA 1996, Pt IV, a non-molestation order is an order prohibiting a person (the respondent) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent or a relevant child. See Practice Notes: Non-molestation orders and Procedure for an application for a non-molestation order. An occupation order is an order under the FLA 1996 conferring, declaring, restricting or regulating rights of occupation in the family home between parties who are in, or who have been in, certain categories of relationship. See Practice Notes: Occupation orders and Procedure for an application for an occupation order. Where an applicant wishes to obtain a variation

Private Client analysis: This case involved an application to the Family Division of the High Court by Sheila Bartram for a guardianship order over the property and financial affairs of her missing son, Stephen John Bartram, under section 2 of the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 (hereafter G(MP)A 2017). It is the first published judgment in respect of a substantive application made under the G(MP)A 2017 and underscores the legal mechanisms that are available for managing the affairs of missing persons. In this case Mr Justice Cobb was required to consider whether Mr Bartram met the definition of a ‘missing person’ under G(MP)A 2017, ss 1, 2 and, if so, whether it was in his best interests to appoint a guardian to manage his financial affairs in his absence. The court granted a guardianship order for two years, appointing Sheila Bartram to handle her son’s property and financial obligations. The order included provisions for selling property and managing debts. The judgment was also delivered in open court and published to potentially assist in locating Mr Bartram. Written by Rhys Hadden, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was an application by joint liquidators under sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The insolvent company was part of a group of companies. Various records relevant to it were held by a different company which provided asset management and administrative services to the insolvent company. The liquidators sought a broad range of documents. It was held that the requests were too broad and there was a lack of evidence as to why the documents were reasonably required. The decision makes clear that office-holders are not entitled to demand documents under IA 1986, s 235 or IA 1986, s 236 solely on the basis that the records they hold are incomplete. Any application must be accompanied by cogent evidence explaining why the specific documents sought are needed for the purposes of the liquidation. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

A forerunner to containers. This technology allowed individual software applications to run as virtual instances on a host computer device.

The application window for the sixth allocation round (AR6) of the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme has opened. Any company or organisation that wishes to apply for a CfD must first register with the National Grid Electricity System Operator. The AR6 application window will close on 19 April 2024.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Oliver Wooding, barrister and mediator at St John’s Chambers, examines the High Court’s decision in Webster v Ashcroft that a district judge at first instance had not erred in law or wrongly exercised his discretion in ordering the appellant to pay the costs which the respondent had incurred in presenting a bankruptcy petition against the appellant, or in refusing to order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs. The High Court held that an application by the appellant, who was subject to an extended civil restraint order (ECRO), to set aside the respondent’s statutory demand without first having received permission under the ECRO for that application was not retrospectively validated by a subsequent order giving permission under the ECRO. Therefore, when the bankruptcy petition had been presented before that permission was granted there was not an outstanding application to set aside the statutory demand which, under section 267(2)(d) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), would have prevented the bankruptcy petition from having been validly presented.

The clerk to whom all papers and enquiries should be directed concerning the issue of claim forms and application notices.

This Flowchart sets out the steps to be taken at the financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) following an application for a financial remedy under the standard procedure. It also sets out the requirements of the Financial remedies guide (March 2026) (the FRG) published on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel (National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) and His Honour Judge Hess (Deputy National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) with the approval of the President of the Family

This flowchart sets out the steps to be taken on an application for a financial remedy under the standard procedure to the first appointment. It includes guidance on who may apply, pre-action requirements, service of the application and directions that may be made by the court. It also details the documentation that must be filed and exchanged by the parties prior to the first appointment including statement of issues, chronology, questionnaires and estimate of costs, with regard to the Financial remedies guide published on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice

This flowchart sets out the steps to be taken at a final hearing following an application for a financial remedy under the standard procedure. It sets out directions that can be made at the financial dispute resolution (FDR) appointment, open proposals and bundles. It considers the statement of costs in Form H1, the duty of disclosure, factors the court will consider (including section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) and orders the court can make. It also sets out the requirements

This Flowchart sets out the steps to be taken at the first appointment following an application for a financial remedy under the standard procedure. It sets out the directions the court may give, expert evidence, interim orders, adjournment for the parties to obtain information about and consider using non-court dispute resolution. It also considers the requirements of the Financial remedies guide (FRG) published on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel (National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) and His Honour Judge Hess

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The government is exploring options to potentially simplify the process and administration of double tax treaty (DTT) relief from UK withholding tax on payments of UK source yearly interest to non-UK lenders. For more information on the consultation published on 13 July 2026, see News Analysis: Legislation Day: Draft Finance Bill 2027—Tax analysis—Finance. This Practice Note explains when a non-UK tax resident corporate lender can apply for relief at source under a double taxation agreement (DTA), also known as a double tax treaty (DTT), from having UK income tax withheld from payments of interest made to it. It describes the procedure to enable a UK borrower to pay interest gross (without a deduction in respect of UK income tax) or subject to a reduced rate of withholding tax. It also briefly discusses the Pillar Two subject to tax rule. Unless an exemption or a relief (including relief under a DTT) applies, a payment of yearly interest arising in the UK (ie with a UK source) is