Three months have passed since the new domestic violence regime came into force.

Has it made any difference? How are we all coping? What can we learn from the story so far?Ex parte ordersWe all know that s 45 seems to make ex parte orders easier.

An ex parte may be granted whenever 'just and convenient'.

But why not apply on notice? The court has to known, and it has to be to ld in the sworn statement accompanying the application (ss FPR r 3.8(5)).

If the statement fails to contain this information there is a danger that the judge will tell you to go away.

The time during which you flutter your eyes and say 'it is all so new' is rapidly drawing to a close.Draft ordersAdmittedly, the FPR do not require you to hand a draft to the judge, but CCR order 13 r 6(6) does, and the best way to get on the wrong side of any judge is to ask him to draft his own order.

The prescribed order in form FL404 is not capable of being jotted down in a hurry.

Your district judge should have a pro-forma on which FL404 will be based.

Beg him to allow you to use it.Exclusion ordersFPR r 3.9(6)(b) provides that any order must be issued in form FL404.

What about an order that a respondent is not to come within, say 100 metres of a dwellinghouse? Such an order exists in FL404 but as part of an occupation order.

What happens if you need to exclude as part of a non-molestation order, for example, because the property in question has never been the home of the parties? Can you mess about with FL404 to that extent? I believe you can and that deviation from the form is permissible.

However, bear in mind that the power to exclude from a defined area comes from s 33(3)(g)) of the Act and is indeed confined to occupation orders.Nevertheless, there is no reason why such an order should not form part of a non-molestation order if there is evidence that this is required to prevent the harassment which leads to the order being made.Waiting for orderCourt staff report that it is frequently difficult to persuade solicitors to wait for the order to be drawn and that, unbelievably, some orders languish in the court office for several days before someone comes to collect them.

Culprits may find that the file goes before the district judge and that he directs that the costs of the application are completely disallowed.Power of arrest: who is to deliverSome solicitors seem to be confused about who should deliver a power of arrest to a police station.

It is beyond dispute that the applicant has to serve any order to which a power of arrest is attached on the respondent.

The person who served it has then to complete a statement showing that the respondent has been served (r 3.9A(1)): without this, the order is unenforceable anyway.

Rule 3.9A then says that a copy of the order must be delivered to the police station although it does not say by whom.

Common sense dictates that the most appropriate person to perform this task is the person who had just served the order!Breaches of undertakingYou may find a divergence of opinion between courts as to whether breach of an undertaking can be enforced by the issue of a warrant of arrest.

It is highly regrettable that this should be so, but, if anyone is to be blamed, it is the Act's draftsmen.

I happen to think that undertakings can be enforced by the issue of a warrant but I accept that there is a respectable alternative view.Section 46(4) provides that an undertaking given to the court (in lieu of an occupation or non-molestation order) is enforceable as if it were an order of the court.

So far, so good.

Section 47(8) then provides for the issue of a warrant of arrest for breaches of occupation or non-molestation orders to which a power of arrest has not been attached.

The problem is that s 47(1) begins by defining a 'relevant order' as a non-molestation or occupation order: the rest of s 47, including s 47(8), then refers throughout to 'relevant orders'.

The term 'relevant orders' appea rs nowhere else in the Act.

Therefore, it is argued, an undertaking is not covered by s 47 because if Parliament had wanted an undertaking to be classified as a 'relevant order' it would have said so in s 47(1).Out of hoursSome courts have adopted the practice of asking applicant's solicitors for an out of hours telephone number in cases where a power of arrest is attached.

There have been unfavourable reactions in some quarters.

If a respondent is arrested and brought before the court on a Saturday morning, the court (and the applicant) will be greatly assisted if the applicant's solicitor is there.

Otherwise, the court will hear only the respondent's side of the story and there could be a risk of a potentially dangerous respondent being released on bail.

A judge who has been hauled in to court from the golf course or his garden will have little sympathy for a solicitor who is unwilling to be so troubled.