This Procedural Guide sets out the steps to be taken on an application for a non-molestation order under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). It provides information on who can apply, the criteria applied by the court and the requirements in relation to without notice (ex parte) applications, service, undertakings and a power of arrest. It considers the duration of an order, drafting the order and the standard orders. It also looks at enforcement of an order. In cases where there have been incidents of domestic abuse it may be appropriate to seek the court's protection with an application for a non-molestation order and/or an occupation order under FLA 1996. A non-molestation order under FLA 1996, Pt IV confers personal protection on family members, including children or people in a domestic relationship, against the use of violence or other forms of molestation by a person with whom they are associated. There are eight classes of applicants who are associated persons, including married or divorced couples, civil partners and engaged or formerly engaged couples. At

This Procedural Guide sets out the steps to be taken on an application for an occupation order under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). It provides information on who can apply, the criteria applied by the court and explains the additional requirements in relation to without notice (ex parte) applications, the rules regarding service, provisions relating to undertakings and a power of arrest. It looks at the duration of an order, drafting the order and the standard order 10.3—occupation order. An occupation order is an order made under FLA 1996, Pt IV primarily determining a right to occupy a property. The court may declare, confer or regulate occupation rights in the family home between family members or those involved in a domestic relationship. FLA 1996, sets out five sets of circumstances under which the court may make an occupation order; namely FLA 1996, ss 33, 35, 36, 37 and 38. Each of those sections set out who may apply, the court's powers and the maximum duration of orders depending on the relationship between

This Procedural Guide sets out the steps to be taken on an application under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) for a parental responsibility order. It provides information on who has parental responsibility, who can apply (including unmarried fathers, step-parents and female parents) and pre-action requirements. It also includes guidance on the principles applied by the court, directions that can be made, the presumption of parental involvement, the rules regarding service and the duration of an order. Parental responsibility is defined in ChA 1989 as all the rights, duties, powers and responsibilities and authority that, by law, a parent of a child has in relation to the child and their property. Parental responsibility may be acquired in a number of ways, including: by an agreement or by an order of the court. Parental responsibility may also be acquired by individuals who are not parents or step-parents in some circumstances as a consequence of other orders. More than one person may have parental responsibility for the same child at the same time. A parent does not lose parental responsibility

Historically known as Anton Piller orders, search orders tend to be made in conjunction with a freezing order and allow the applicant to enter the respondent's premises to search and preserve evidence that may otherwise be disposed of or destroyed. The order can only be served by a supervising solicitor and is subject to very strict conditions as detailed in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The use of search orders was considered in two cases concerned with disclosure and self help (L v L and Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman). The dangers of self-help as opposed to seeking the appropriate remedies available through the court were stated clearly, see Practice Note: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings—Disclosure of documents belonging to the other party. Great care should be taken when drafting the terms of the order. Standard order 3.2 Search order—family proceedings has been issued as part of the standard orders project with the authority of the President of the Family Division, see Index of family standard orders.

This Procedural Guide sets out the steps to be taken on an application under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 for a specific issue order to determine a specific question connected with parental responsibility or, a prohibited steps order as to the exercise of parental responsibility in a defined matter. It provides information on who can apply, pre-action requirements, principles applied by the court, duration of the order, service and without notice (ex parte) applications. Specific issue orders A specific issue order may be made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). It gives directions for determining a specific question that has arisen, or that may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child. It can be used to determine questions about a child's upbringing, eg whether the child should go to a state school or be educated privately. A specific issue order can be made on its own or with a child arrangements order. See Practice Note: Specific issue orders. Certain categories of individuals

This Procedural Guide sets out steps for an application to transfer a tenancy on relationship breakdown under Schedule 7 to the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). Transfer of tenancy orders are available to spouses, civil partners, former spouses, former civil partners and former cohabitants, where the tenancy is a relevant tenancy and certain statutory conditions are met. For detailed practical guidance, see Practice Notes: Tenancies and relationship breakdown—substantive provisions and Tenancies and relationship breakdown—procedure. This Procedural Guide deals with applications under FLA 1996, Sch 7 only. Certain tenancies may also be transferred by a property adjustment order under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and its Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) equivalent (CPA 2004, Sch 5 Pt 2) or in proceedings for financial provision after an overseas divorce etc, or by a transfer of property order under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. See: Transfer via a property adjustment order—spouses and civil partners and Transfer of tenancy via Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989—cases involving minor children. See also: Procedural

This Procedural Guide highlights the steps and decisions specific to an application to vary or discharge a financial remedy order. It deals with assessing whether an order is capable of variation, allocation to the fast-track or standard procedure, pre-application requirements, forms and disclosure. It also covers interim applications, costs and variation by agreement. For general guidance as to the standard procedure, which applies to most variation applications, see: • Procedural guide—applications for a financial remedy: application to first appointment (standard procedure) • Procedural guide—applications for a financial remedy: first appointment (standard procedure) • Procedural guide—applications for a financial remedy: financial dispute resolution appointment (FDR) (standard procedure) • Procedural guide—applications for a financial remedy: final hearing (standard procedure) Applications to vary a financial remedy order are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 9. The fast-track procedure applies only to an application to vary a periodical payments order where no form of capitalisation is sought and applications to vary orders made under the rarely used Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts

Employment analysis: When considering an appeal on the basis that there has been a procedural irregularity at an employment tribunal hearing (eg an important document submitted by a party had not been considered by the tribunal prior to reaching its decision), in order for the appeal to be allowed, there is no universal requirement for the appellate tribunal to be satisfied that a different conclusion would have been reached in the absence of that irregularity. That would amount to the appellate tribunal determining the issue as if it were the original tribunal, according to the EAT.

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. [insert number] Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal orders as follows: 1 Hearing by video-conference 1.1 The [insert hearing description] (the Hearing) shall be conducted by video-conference, using [insert name of video-conferencing platform] as the video-conferencing platform (the Platform). The Tribunal considers that this will provide the parties with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. 2 [Prior directions concerning the Hearing] 2.1 [This Procedural Order supersedes [insert references to any prior directions to the extent inconsistent with this Procedural Order or no longer applicable].] 2.2 [[Insert references to any provisions of prior Procedural Orders or other directions by the Tribunal concerning the Hearing that are to continue to apply] shall continue to apply.] 3 Hosting [and technical support] 3.1 [[The institutional case manager/tribunal secretary/case monitor/other person] shall act as the host for the Hearing (the Host). The Host shall liaise with the Tribunal and parties to ensure that the Hearing is held in accordance with this Procedural Order and as directed by the Tribunal.

Arbitration analysis: This case examines the question of whether arbitral ‘procedural orders’ are amenable to annulment under French law. The Paris Court of Appeal considered Mesa’s attempt to annul three ICC procedural orders and found the application inadmissible. The court emphasised that, under Article 1518 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), only arbitral awards that definitively resolve the dispute in whole or in part (on the merits, jurisdiction, or by terminating the proceedings) may be challenged by way of annulment. The orders at issue merely rejected a withdrawal ‘without prejudice’, directed the arbitration to continue, and managed filing deadlines. As such, the procedural orders could not be challenged by way of annulment. The ruling reinforces France’s strict approach to what qualifies as a challengeable ‘award’. It affirms the high threshold for treating procedural orders as awards, making clear that such characterization is not permitted where the directions in the order do not finally dispose of any claims or the proceedings. Written by Clément Fouchard, partner at Reed Smith, Paris.

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) came into force on 6 April 2022. Proceedings issued by the court on or after 6 April 2022 are subject to the provisions of DDSA 2020 and the changes to procedure under the amended Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. For further information, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020. Proceedings issued by the court on or before 5 April 2022 continue to progress under the pre-DDSA 2020 law. Such applications are not impacted by the coming into force of DDSA 2020, nor the consequential changes to procedure. This Practice Note covers the position for proceedings issued prior to 6 April 2022. Legislative changes were made as a consequence of DDSA 2020, including to FPR 2010, Pt 7. To view a historic version of FPR 2010, Pt 7, and FPR 2010, Practice Direction 7A as applicable to proceedings issued prior to 6 April 2022, see below: This Practice Note is an overview of the procedure

The litigation friend A ‘protected party’ means a party, or an intended party, who lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to conduct the proceedings. For further guidance on mental capacity, see Practice Note: Mental capacity in personal injury claims. The term ‘under a disability’ is used, in the context of litigation, to refer to both a protected party or a child (a person under 18), and the conduct of such claims involves some of the same principles. This Practice Note is specifically directed to those who are protected parties because they lack mental capacity to conduct the proceedings. It must be borne in mind at all times that the question of whether a claimant has capacity to conduct the litigation is a separate issue from that of the capacity to manage their own financial affairs. In many cases, the claimant will be lacking in mental capacity to understand and manage all aspects of their affairs, including financial and litigation (for instance, those who have