New Guidance from the PFD on Non-Molestation Orders from 12 January 2026

Introduction

On 12 January 2026, revised guidance concerning Non-Molestation Orders (NMOs) came into effect. This guidance replaces the earlier guidance in 2023 and has been issued by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. For practitioners, the guidance aims to improve the quality of applications for NMOs.

The guidance standardises the procedure for applications following an assessment of local courts’ practices that have caused confusion in differing requirements for non-molestation applications. The guidance has streamlined the procedure and processes to be applied nationally. Moving forward, Courts must:

“Have in place procedures to ensure all applications for NMOs are referred to a judge in the court on the date of issue, or on the next working day if issued after 4pm.

When listing, the court should consider requests for participation directions for remote attendance where there are concerns regarding vulnerabilities such as the applicant’s safety if the court required attendance. 

Statements to support applications for without notice applications should be prepared in accordance with the guidance at Annex 1 of the PFD Guidance 2026”. (President of the Family Division’s Guidance 2026, p.3 paras. 8 – 10)

Vagueness and unnecessary prohibitions

The guidance sets out that vague terms such as “harassment”, “pestering”, or “molestation” are not precise enough, and as a result, are not enforceable with ease. With consideration to the facts of the case, it is unnecessary for the court to make an order prohibiting these as they are already criminal offences without an NMO (President of the Family Division’s Guidance 2026, p.6-7 paras. 21-23).

Where the court decides to exclude the respondent from an area the applicant frequents, consideration should be given to the geographical area. Distance-based exclusions, such as “100 metres from the applicant’s home” and detached maps are discouraged due to enforcement difficulties (President of the Family Division’s Guidance 2026, p.7 paras. 25).

Proportionality

Where the parties are engaged in family proceedings, it is unlikely to be proportionate to bar all forms of communication. The court should consider the impact of a complete cessation of communication on the family. 

On notice applications

Where the respondent is informed of the application for a NMO, the court must list this hearing within 21 days of application.

Without notice applications

The guidance adopts a firm stance towards applications made without notice. Section 45 of the Family Law Act 1996 (“FLA”) does not impose a test of exceptionality, the guidance reiterated that without notice applications should be treated as exceptional in practice (R v R [2014] EWFC 48 and DS v AC [2023] EWFC 46; President of the Family Division’s Guidance 2026 p.2 para. 6). Practitioners are warned against the use of without notice orders to exclude a respondent from their home, their workplace, or other essential location without specific and compelling evidence to justify a significant infringement on the respondents rights.

Drafting Orders

NMOs must now precisely state what a respondent is restricted from doing. The President’s standard order reflects the decision to prioritise intelligibility and enforceability over breadth.

All NMOs must specify a fixed end date. It is no longer sufficient to rely on a return date alone, and practitioners should be prepared to justify the duration sought by reference to risk. 

Return Hearings

There is an acknowledgement in the guidance that most return hearings for NMOs are unnecessary. To further address this issue, the guidance states respondents will be served with a response form. This will enable them to indicate whether they agree to a continuation, do not oppose continuation on a non-admission basis, or seek for the court to list a contested hearing.

Enforcement of Non-Molestation Orders

Personal service is reaffirmed as the starting point in all matters. There are persistent enforcement difficulties for NMOs arising from deemed or substituted service addressed in the guidance. As a result, practitioners are required to justify a departure from personal service in a formal application.

To enhance the enforcement of NMOs, orders should include identifying information such as dates of birth and known contact details to assist with enforcement. Practitioners should use their best endeavours to obtain this information. 

Final thoughts

It will be interesting to see whether this guidance takes effect and if it is applied consistently across the country.