Without notice application

An application made to the court before the other side even knows about it — reserved for cases where advance notice would defeat the point, and always open to challenge once the other side finds out.

Isn't it unfair to ask a court for something without telling the other side?

It can look that way, which is exactly why the rules keep it to limited circumstances and build in a safeguard afterwards. A without notice application is only appropriate where telling the other side in advance would let them defeat the purpose of the application — for example by moving money or disposing of evidence — or where genuine urgency leaves no real time to give notice. The respondent is then served with whatever order is made and can apply to have it varied or set aside.

What is the difference between 'without notice' and the old term 'ex parte'?

They mean the same thing. 'Ex parte' was the term used before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 1999, and 'without notice' is the modern English equivalent used throughout the current rules. You may still see 'ex parte' in older cases or textbooks describing the same procedure.

What has to be included in a without notice application?

The applicant has a duty of full and frank disclosure — setting out the relevant facts honestly, including points that might help the other side's case, not just the points that favour the application. Because the respondent is not there to put their side, the court relies heavily on the applicant being candid, and an order obtained by hiding or misrepresenting material facts can later be set aside for that reason alone.

Can the court refuse to deal with an application without notice?

Yes. The court is not obliged to grant an application just because it is made without notice — it will consider whether the circumstances genuinely justify bypassing notice, and can instead direct that the application be heard on notice, giving the respondent a chance to be heard before any order is made.

What can a respondent do once served with an order made without notice?

Apply promptly to the court to have the order varied or set aside, explaining their side of the matter and, where relevant, pointing out anything the applicant failed to disclose fairly. The court will then look at the application afresh with both sides present.

Are without notice applications common in small claims cases?

They are relatively unusual, since most procedural applications in a small claims case — for example applying to adjourn a hearing, or for more time to comply with a direction — are made on notice to the other party in the ordinary way. Without notice applications tend to come up where there is a real risk that notice itself would undermine the point of the application, most often in connection with urgent interim relief.

Why the default is notice, and when the exception applies

The ordinary rule under the Civil Procedure Rules is that every application should be made on notice, giving the other party a fair chance to respond before the court decides anything. A without notice application departs from that default, and the rules keep it narrow for good reason: a court deciding something with only one side present is working with an incomplete picture, however careful the applicant tries to be. The justification has to be real — either that telling the other side in advance would let them do the very thing the application is trying to prevent, such as moving assets out of reach or destroying evidence, or that there is genuine urgency leaving no practical time to give notice at all.

Because of this, the court does not treat a without notice application as a free pass. It will consider whether the stated justification genuinely applies, and can direct that the matter instead be dealt with on notice if it is not satisfied that bypassing notice is really necessary.

The applicant's duty of full and frank disclosure

What happens if disclosure was not full and frank

If it later emerges that the applicant failed to disclose something material, or presented the facts in a misleadingly one-sided way, the court can set aside the order on that basis alone, regardless of whether the underlying application might otherwise have succeeded. This is treated seriously precisely because the respondent had no opportunity to correct the picture at the time the order was made — the integrity of the without notice procedure depends on applicants being candid rather than strategic.

A claimant discovers that a defendant, who owes £9,000 under a judgment, is about to transfer their only significant asset — funds in a bank account — to a family member, which would leave nothing to enforce against once notice is given.

Risk if notice given first

Funds moved before any order takes effect

Notice would defeat the purpose

Without notice application for interim relief

Because telling the defendant in advance would let them move the money before any order could take effect, an application made without notice, supported by full and frank disclosure of the relevant facts, is the kind of situation the procedure is designed for. Once any order is made, it is served on the defendant, who can then apply to have it varied or set aside.

Application notice (N244)

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 23

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 25

Practice Direction 25A

Without Notice Application — Small Claims Glossary

What a without notice application is, when a court will allow one, the duty of full and frank disclosure, and how the other side can challenge it afterwards.