Case No. EWFC-50

[1999] 2 FLR 573 where Butler Sloss LJ set out clear guidelines for the making of such orders. Although there are numerous subsequent cases, those guidelines continue to hold good and are a clear statement of the correct approach:“Guidelines(1) Section 91(14) of the Act of 1989 should be read in conjunction with section 1(1), which makes the welfare of the child the paramount consideration.(2) The power to restrict applications to the court is discretionary and in the exercise of its discretion the court must weigh in the balance all the relevant circumstances.(3) An important consideration is that to impose a restriction is a statutory intrusion into the right of a party to bring proceedings before the court and to be heard in matters affecting his/her child.(4) The power is therefore to be used with great care and sparingly, the exception and not the rule.(5) It is generally to be seen as a useful weapon of last resort in cases of repeated and unreasonable applications.(6) In suitable circumstances (and on clear evidence), a court may impose the leave restriction in cases where the welfare of the child requires it, although there is no past history of making unreasonable applications.(7) In cases under paragraph 6 above, the court will need to be satisfied first that the facts go beyond the commonly encountered need for a time to settle to a regime ordered by the court and the all too common situation where there is animosity between the adults in dispute or between the local authority and the family and secondly that there is a serious risk that, without the imposition of the restriction, the child or the primary carers will be subject to unacceptable strain.(8) A court may impose the restriction on making applications in the absence of a request from any of the parties, subject, of course, to the rules of natural justice such as an opportunity for the parties to be heard on the point.(9) A restriction may be imposed with or without limitation of time.(10) The degree of restriction should be proportionate to the harm it is intended to avoid. Therefore the court imposing the restriction should carefully consider the extent of the restriction to be imposed and specify, where appropriate, the type of application to be restrained and the duration of the order.(11) It would be undesirable in other than the most exceptional cases to make the order ex parte.”