Sometimes the lobby of a county court can resemble the accident and emergency department of a busy hospital, with litigants “demanding” to see a judge. In fact, courts do have an emergency service in cases of true crisis and even a phone number for contacting a duty judge out of hours. It is effectively a 24/7 service. It deals with such matters as domestic violence, snatching of a child and the threat of homelessness — situations in which an urgent decision is needed.

However, there is some concern that it might be abused. Those who do so may find themselves facing the wrath of the judiciary as well as a hefty order for costs.

It should be borne in mind that such emergency “ex parte” or “without notice" applications are in essence a breach of natural justice as they involve an applicant seeking an order from the court without giving any notice in advance to the other side. They must be strictly reserved for exceptional situations, such as to stop a husband from beating his wife; to prevent a landlord from summarily throwing a tenant out on the street; or to stop a child being taken out of the country.

But a recent case showed how the system can be subverted by giving misinformation to the judge who has to make the decision. A Mrs Lawer left the matrimonial home with her two children because of alleged violence on the part of her husband. She surrendered her tenancy of the former matrimonial home and then presented herself and the children at the local authority as homeless.

Although she was accommodated on a temporary basis by the local authority, that arrangement eventually ended. The local authority took the view that they owed no further obligation to Mrs Lawer and her children. They allegedly ended up on the streets, sleeping in a car.

Mrs Lawer’s lawyers made an urgent application to the duty judge for an injunction ordering the local authority to house their client and her family. The application was made out of hours and over the phone to the judge. The judge had no papers in front of her so was entirely dependent on what was told to her by Mrs Lawer’s counsel.

This is where it all started to go wrong. The barrister told the judge, first, that the local authority had not addressed it mind to its legal requirements and, second, that the local authority had not given its reasons for refusal to help. Both statements were inaccurate. Ignorant of this, the judge made an immediate order requiring the local authority to provide Mrs Lawer and her family with accommodation. Not surprisingly, the local authority subsequently applied to set aside the order.

Mr Justice Munby, hearing the application, discovered that, far from Mrs Lawer’s application having merit, it was, in reality, “hopeless”. He had no hesitation in setting it aside and had some scathing words for those who abuse such applications:

“Too often, in my experience, ex parte applications are made which are not urgent or which, more frequently, have become urgent only because of unnecessary, inappropriate and usually unexplained delay. The present case is a good example . . . This was no way to treat a court which is struggling, with limited resources, to meet an ever burgeoning case-load . . . It simply is not good enough.”

Now that breaches of domestic non-molestation orders are punishable as a criminal offence, the judges are scrutinising urgent applications even more carefully to make sure that they are justified.

As I wrote last year, Christmas time is a peak season for such applications. The season of peace and goodwill is actually often far removed from that. The courts are willing to help those who genuinely find themselves in need of urgent assistance. But those who do not have a true emergency or who fail to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when making their applications may find disappointment rather than satisfaction.

Stephen Gerlis is a district judge at Barnet County Court

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers