This is more a case of new wine in old bottles, because any revisiting of this topic b rings reminders of what our practice ought to be.Back to basics - old wineFirstly, there are some applications that have to be made without notice, because of their very nature - such as those to abridge time for service.Secondly, there is an area of work spawned by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) rr 1.3 and 3.3.

Solicitors write in to keep the court informed of (lack of) progress in the case and by implication seek an 'own initiative' order.

Brilliant idea: no fee payable, and no exposure to the adverse costs consequences of a failed application! Beware, district judges who say that if you want a judicial decision, you make a formal application with evidence, and pay a fee.Thirdly, there are applications that properly flow from the powers in the CPR (r.23.8) for the court to deal with cases without a hearing, and the application of the overriding objective (see CPR PD 23 paras 2.2-2.6 for the procedure and para 3 for the appropriate cases).

On the application notice in form N244 tick the box stating a preference for the application to be disposed of without a hearing, and the application notice, which will usually incorporate the evidence relied upon, will be put before the district judge to consider.This procedure attracts a fee of only £25, not £50, and a sensible draft order plus costs statement to enable summary assessment to be made on the papers shows you have thought the thing right through.The district judge may, however, direct a hearing in any event.

Where an order is made without notice, CPR r.23.9 covers subsequent service of the application notice and order, and the inclusion in the order of the 'Government Health Warning' - the right to apply to set aside or vary under r.23.10.Injunctive reliefWithout notice applications are specifically contemplated where there is exceptional urgency and interim injunctive relief is sought.On the civil side, CPR pt 25 applies.

Orders can be made in advance of proceedings (r.25.2).

However an interim remedy requires evidence, and that evidence must include the reasons for not giving notice.

Forget them, and you will at the lowest be sent back to re-swear any statement or affidavit.

Paras 3 and 4 of the Interim Injunctions PD to Pt 25 apply.

Remember that an application for a without notice order must set out all the facts of which the court must be aware, which means a balanced, and not one-sided approach.A civil injunction must, unless the court orders otherwise, include an undertaking as to damages, and if made without notice, an undertaking to serve post-haste with an early return date for review.

Permission to apply to set aside or vary the injunction before the return date seemingly makes it Human Rights Act 1998 compliant.As to whether an interim injunction will be granted, look at that old favourite, American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504.

Is there a serious question to be tried (damages being an inadequate remedy for the claimant's pre-trial losses, and the claimant's undertaking in damages protecting the defendant) and where does the balance of convenience lie? As the remedy is discretionary, concepts such as proportionality are now imported into the balancing exercise.

If granting the injunction would effectively resolve the entire action, the court looks at the merits of the action to determine prospects of success.Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s.37 a divorce court may be asked to restrain dealings with property in proceedings for ancillary relief.

The court needs to be satisfied that a disposition is being made with th e intention of preventing, frustrating or impeding an ancillary relief claim, or the enforcement of an order already made.

'Disposition' is given a wide interpretation.

Inability to prove an intention to defeat an ancillary relief claim sometimes leads the advocate to rely on the 'inherent jurisdiction' argument.

Alright in the High Court, whose inherent jurisdiction may be used in the absence of any other available statutory authority, but the county court is itself a creature of statute and the County Courts Act 1984 s.38 will seemingly not assist (Devon County Council v B [1997] 3 FCR 333).Family practitioners are familiar with orders under the specific provisions of Pt IV Family Law Act 1996 to restrain violence (s.42) with or without an occupation order (ss 33 and 35-40).

Practitioners still seek 'ex parte' residence orders under the Children Act 1989 s.8, but these will only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances.The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ss 1, 3 & 7, and Housing Act 1996 ss 152-154 both also create specific procedures addressing anti-social behaviour; the latter specifically countenances no notice being given to a defendant.

With the former, CPR Pt 25 is applied.Onto the new wineIn W v H [2000] All ER (D) 1422, Munby J dealt with the situation where in breach of an order, children were not returned to their mother in England.

The wealthy father, through various controlled companies, owned two large properties here.

Permission was given to the mother to issue sequestration proceedings, the father was enjoined from completing one property sale, and a worldwide freezing order was made.

The court refused to be bamboozled by legal technicalities.It enjoined the husband, his nominee shareholder, and the company, without joining the latter.

The same judge later revisited without notice practice (Re S (child: ex parte orders) [2000] All ER (D) 1559), and gave further assistance.Solicitors, please take note! This guidance, although particular to family cases, echoes the provisions in CPR PD 25 and was addressed in Gadget Shop v Bug Com Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 799:-- An ex parte order granting injunctive relief should recite or refer to all material read by the judge.-- The applicant's solicitors should ensure the order is correctly drawn.-- The applicant's solicitors should respond to requests from the enjoined party for information.-- In the Family Division it would be assumed there would be no undertaking as to damages unless expressly given, (although in W v H it was required).-- Those seeking relief ex parte must make the fullest, most candid and frank disclosure of all the relevant circumstances known to them, whether of fact or law.-- A judge should not be shown material ex parte if it is to be withheld from the respondent.-- Compliance with undertakings, for example to issue substantive proceedings, or swear affidavits in the form of drafts, and serve the order itself, should be to the letter.

Time is of the essence where an act must be done by a specified time.

Solicitors should, if in apparent difficulty, re-apply to the court or pass the task to someone who can perform.-- Even if no express undertaking is given, the solicitor is under an obligation both to court and client to comply.-- To avoid future problems and embarrassment advocates should keep a proper note of the proceedings.The comments of Munby J are reminders not just to family solicitors, but seemingly reflect good practice generally, even if reference should always be made to the specific provisions of the rules and the relevant statutory authority.And finallyIf proposing to make an application without notice, first ask yourself:-- Why come without notice?-- Why not short or informal notice?-- Does my draft order provide for:-- The minimum interference with the rights of the respondent consistent with preservation of safety and property?-- The matter being returned to court as soon as possible?-- The respondent being given the right to apply in any event?