The self-represented applicant brought an urgent, ex parte motion seeking to set aside a recent consent order and requesting 28 different heads of relief.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not meet the requirements for an urgent or ex parte motion under the Family Law Rules or the applicable practice direction.
The court also declined to follow a recent decision that expanded the definition of urgency to include systemic delay and coercive control, noting the practical burden such an expansion would place on Superior Court Justices in jurisdictions without Associate Justices.
