Justices (Restraint Orders) Rules 2023

The rules define or rely on several key concepts drawn from the Justices Act 1959 and the Justices Rules 2003. The most important are the definitions of “Act” (the Justices Act 1959) and “clerk” (having the same meaning as in the Justices Rules 2003). The expression “Part XA” is the statutory home of the restraint order regime, and the rules explicitly state that any expression used in the rules has the same meaning as in that Part unless the contrary intention appears. This means the substantive definitions - for example, what constitutes a “restraint order”, an “interim restraint order”, a “registered external restraint order”, a “respondent”, and a “person for whose benefit” the order is made - are all found in the Act, not in the rules.

A central procedural concept is the “sealed copy” of an application or warrant. The rules require a sealed copy to be served personally on the respondent as soon as practicable after filing. A “sealed copy” means the copy that bears the court’s seal, which authenticates it as an official court document. The rules also introduce the concept of an “endorsed copy” - a copy of the sealed copy that has been endorsed with a memorandum of service signed by the server. That endorsed copy can be used as evidence of service unless the contrary is shown. The rules allow facsimile copies of the endorsed copy to be used for evidentiary purposes.

Another concept is the “authorised source” for electronic filing. The Chief Magistrate approves certain persons or agencies to file applications by electronic means under rule 65(2) of the Justices Rules 2003. The rules restrict electronic filing to those authorised sources only. Ordinary applicants, including police officers, must file physically unless they have been approved. This creates a two-tier system: approved agencies (likely police, possibly legal aid or government departments) can file remotely, saving their own time and travel, while unapproved applicants must attend the clerk’s office in person.

The rules also differentiate between “police officers” and “any other applicant” for the purpose of supporting evidence. A police officer can rely on a statutory declaration (a sworn statement made before an authorised witness but not cross-examined), whereas any other applicant must provide an affidavit (a sworn document that can be subject to cross-examination if a party so requires). This difference reflects the State’s reliance on police judgment and the lower evidentiary burden placed on police. It also means that a private applicant bears a higher cost in preparing an affidavit, especially if they must later attend court for cross-examination.

The concept of “leave” appears in references to applications for leave to make a restraint order application (section 106B(3) of the Act) and applications for leave to vary, extend or revoke (section 106G(2)). The rules exclude those leave applications from the requirement to file an affidavit in reply under rule 7(2), indicating that the initial leave stage is intended to be summary and not require a fully contested evidentiary response.

Finally, the notion of “dispensing with compliance” under rule 10 gives a justice a broad discretion to excuse a party from following the procedures in Part XA or the rules. This is a safety valve intended to prevent procedural technicalities from defeating the purpose of the regime, but it also introduces uncertainty: a party cannot be sure that the rules will be enforced in their case, and a justice’s decision to dispense is not appealable under the rules themselves.

The rules affect a range of persons and institutions, each bearing different compliance burdens.

Applicants for restraint orders. The person who seeks the order - typically a person alleging harassment or violence, or a police officer applying on that person’s behalf - must comply with the application requirements under rule 4. If the applicant is a police officer, they must file a statutory declaration. If the applicant is any other person (including a private individual seeking their own protection), they must file an affidavit. The applicant must also cause a sealed copy of the application to be served personally on the respondent as soon as practicable after filing. This imposes a logistical and cost burden on the applicant, who must arrange personal service - often by hiring a process server or enlisting police. Failure to serve promptly can delay the proceedings. Additionally, if the application is for variation, extension or revocation, the applicant must serve it on every other person aged 14 or over who benefits from the order, as well as on the respondent, further increasing cost and complexity.

Respondents. The person against whom the restraint order is sought, or whose existing order is sought to be varied or revoked, must receive personal service of the sealed copy of the application (rule 6(2)). If the respondent wishes to defend, they may file an affidavit in reply at the earliest practicable date before the return date (rule 7(1)). That affidavit is restricted to concise, relevant answers and any matters necessary to support the respondent’s case and define the issues. This limits the respondent’s ability to raise tangential matters, but also forces early preparation. If the respondent fails to file an affidavit, the court may proceed on the applicant’s evidence alone. The respondent also bears the risk that the court may allow the applicant’s affidavit to be used even if the applicant does not attend for cross-examination, subject to conditions (rule 8(3)).

Persons for whose benefit the order is made. This is the protected person. They are not a party to the proceedings in the usual sense, but the rules require that they be notified of certain events: the clerk must forward a copy of the order to them if they were not the applicant (rule 9(2)(c)); they must receive notice of variations, extensions, revocations and cancellations (rule 9(4)(c), (5)(c)). This imposes a duty on the clerk but the protected person may rely on receiving those notifications. The protected person may also apply for revocation of a restraint order (see rule 6(2)(b)(i) exception to service) - but if they are under 14, they must serve the application on the respondent personally unless a police officer applies.

The Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner is the central recipient of information about restraint orders. The clerk must notify the Commissioner of the filing of an application for variation/extension/revocation if the applicant was not a police officer and a police officer was the original applicant (rule 6(4)). The clerk must also forward copies of all restraint orders and orders varying or extending them to the Commissioner (rule 9(2)(a), (4)(a)). On revocation or cancellation, the clerk must notify the Commissioner (rule 9(5)(a)). This ensures the police database of active orders is updated, which is critical for enforcement and for police response to breaches.

Clerks of the court. The clerk is the administrative hub: they receive applications, file them, seal copies, receive endorsed copies of service, notify the Commissioner and other parties, and forward copies of orders. The rules create a set of administrative tasks that must be performed as soon as practicable. This imposes a workflow burden on the clerks’ office, especially if multiple applications are filed or if service is delayed.

Authorised sources approved by the Chief Magistrate. Entities approved to file electronically under rule 5 gain a convenience: they can file without physically attending the clerk’s office. However, they must retain the original signed application in a safe place and produce it to a magistrate on request. That retention obligation imposes a recordkeeping cost and a risk of loss or non-production.

Magistrates and justices. They have a discretion to dispense with compliance under rule 10, but they also must manage proceedings where a party seeks to require cross-examination of an affidavit-maker. They may impose conditions on the use of an affidavit if the maker fails to attend.

The rules create several duties and rights beyond the underlying Act.

Duty to specify the order sought and to verify the application (rule 4(1)). Every application under Part XA must specify the order sought and contain a statutory declaration (if made by a police officer) or an affidavit (if by any other applicant) stating that to the best of the applicant’s knowledge and belief the information is true. This is a procedural obligation that must be met at filing. If the application is filed under section 106B(1) after a warrant has been issued under section 106C(1) (a warrant to apprehend the person to be restrained), the application must state that the warrant has been issued (rule 4(3)). This ensures the magistrate knows the background.

Duty of an authorised source to retain the original signed application (rule 5(4)). This is the counterpart to the right to file electronically. The duty is ongoing and applies even after the application is filed. If the original is lost, the authorised source may be unable to comply with a magistrate’s request for production, potentially affecting the proceeding.

Duty to serve a sealed copy personally on the respondent (rule 6(2), (3), (5)). This is one of the most burdensome duties. For restraint order applications, the sealed copy must be served personally as soon as practicable after filing. For variation/extension/revocation applications, it must be served on the respondent and on every other beneficiary aged 14 or over. For applications to cancel registration of an external order, personal service is required unless the applicant is the beneficiary. The mode of service for variation applications is to be in accordance with rule 20 of the Justices Rules 2003 (as if the sealed copy were a summons). That rule typically allows substituted service if personal service is impracticable, but the rules do not expressly permit substituted service for the initial restraint order application - only for variation applications. This is a significant difference: a restraint order applicant cannot rely on rule 20 and must achieve actual personal service, which may be difficult or expensive if the respondent evades service.

Right of a respondent to file an affidavit in reply (rule 7(1)). This is a right, not a duty. The respondent may choose to defend by filing an affidavit at the earliest practicable date before the return date. The affidavit must be concise and contain only relevant answers and matters to support the respondent’s case. This right is qualified: it does not apply to leave applications, applications for registration of external orders, or applications for leave to vary/cancel registration (rule 7(2)). In those cases, the respondent may be heard but not by way of a formal affidavit in reply under the rule.

Right to require cross-examination of an affidavit-maker (rule 8(3)). A party may give written notice requiring the maker of an affidavit used at the hearing to attend for cross-examination. If the maker fails to attend, the court may refuse to allow the affidavit, allow it on conditions, or adjourn. This right gives a respondent leverage to test the applicant’s evidence. However, it also imposes a cost on the party who requires attendance: they must give notice and may still face an adjournment if the maker does not appear.

Duty of the server to endorse and lodge (rule 6(6), (10)). The person who serves the application must endorse on a copy a memorandum stating the day, place and mode of service, sign it, and lodge that endorsed copy with the clerk as soon as practicable. This creates a record of service that is central to proving that the respondent was notified. For a warrant executed under section 106C(1), the executing officer must serve a copy or facsimile of the application on the person apprehended and endorse the warrant accordingly.

Duty of the clerk to notify certain persons and to forward copies (rule 9). The clerk has a series of duties: forwarding copies of orders to the Commissioner, the applicant, and the beneficiary; notifying persons of revocation/cancellation; and notifying the applicant, beneficiary and Commissioner when service of an order is proved. These duties are not discretionary; they must be performed as soon as practicable. Failure to do so could leave a protected person unaware that an order has been varied or revoked, potentially putting them at risk.

Power of justices to dispense with compliance (rule 10). This is a residual power subject to Part XA of the Act. A justice may excuse a party from any provision of Part XA or the rules, on any conditions considered necessary. This power is broad but not unlimited - the Act’s provisions set substantive limits. It acts as a safety valve for procedural missteps, but also creates uncertainty because a party cannot know in advance whether a failure to comply will be excused.

The rules themselves do not create criminal penalties or civil sanctions. They are procedural rules, and their enforcement is indirect. Non-compliance with a rule does not automatically invalidate an application or an order; the court has discretion to deal with the breach. The key enforcement mechanisms are:

• Refusal to allow an affidavit to be used (rule 8(3)(a)). If a party requires cross-examination of an affidavit-maker and the maker fails to attend, the court may refuse to allow the affidavit to be used. This can severely weaken a party’s case, especially the applicant’s case, because the applicant’s evidence is usually the sole evidence in support.

• Adjournment (rule 8(3)(c)). The court may adjourn the proceedings until the affidavit-maker attends. This causes delay and increases costs for all parties.

• Conditions on the use of an affidavit (rule 8(3)(b)). The court may allow the affidavit to be used on conditions it sees fit. That could include requiring the party relying on it to pay the other party’s costs thrown away.

• Dispensing power (rule 10). This is a double-edged sword. A party who has failed to comply may seek an order dispensing with the relevant rule, but the justice may impose conditions (such as costs or further steps) in return. Conversely, a party who has suffered prejudice from the other’s non-compliance may argue that the justice should not dispense with compliance, or should do so only on stringent conditions.

• Costs orders. Although not mentioned in the rules, the Act or the general civil procedure rules may allow the court to award costs against a party who has caused unnecessary expense by non-compliance. For example, if an applicant fails to serve the application promptly and the respondent has to attend court unprepared, the court could order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.

• Risk of losing the benefit of the order. If an applicant does not comply with the service requirements, the court may not proceed to make the order, or if an order is made but not served, it may not be enforceable against the respondent. Under the Act, a breach of a restraint order is an offence; but if the order has not been served on the respondent in accordance with the rules, the respondent may have a defence that they were not aware of its terms.

• Disciplinary or administrative consequences for authorised sources. An authorised source that fails to retain the original signed application (rule 5(4)) may lose its approval from the Chief Magistrate. The rules do not spell out the consequences, but non-compliance with a condition of approval could lead to revocation of the right to file electronically.

• Liability for false statements. The requirement that an application contain a statutory declaration or affidavit stating the information is true to the best of the applicant’s knowledge and belief means that a deliberate false statement could attract perjury or similar offences under the Act or the Criminal Code. The rules do not create that liability; it arises from the general law.

In summary, the rules rely on the court’s procedural discretion and the underlying penal provisions of the Act. A party who ignores the rules does so at their own risk, but the court can tailor a remedy.

The rules sit within an existing legal framework and interact with several other instruments.

Justices Act 1959 (the Act). This is the primary interaction. The rules are explicitly made under the Act and govern applications under Part XA. Many provisions of the rules cross-reference specific sections of the Act: section 106B(1) (application for restraint order), section 106C(1) (warrant to apprehend), section 106G(1) (variation, extension, revocation), section 106GA(1) (registration of external restraint order), section 106GD(2) (cancellation of registration). The rules do not duplicate or modify the substantive criteria for making orders; they only provide the procedure. The Act also likely contains provisions about the duration of orders, grounds for making them, and the effect of breach. The rules must be read together with those provisions. Rule 10 explicitly makes the dispensing power subject to Part XA of the Act: a justice cannot dispense with a requirement of the Act itself, only with the rules or with provisions in Part XA that are procedural.

Justices Rules 2003 (SR 2003-184). The rules incorporate several provisions of the Justices Rules 2003 by reference. Rule 3 adopts the definition of “clerk” from those rules. Rule 6(3)(b) and (5) require service of applications for variation etc. to be in accordance with rule 20 of the 2003 rules (substituted service). Rule 7(5) applies rule 20 of the 2003 rules to service of affidavits in reply. This means the practitioner must look at the 2003 rules to understand how service can be effected, especially if personal service is not possible. The 2003 rules also deal with broader procedural matters (time limits, filing, summonses) but the rules supersede them for Part XA applications to the extent of any inconsistency.

Rules Publication Act 1953. The rules are notified under this Act, which governs the publication and tabling of subordinate legislation. This is a procedural formality and does not affect their legal effect.

Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) or similar. Although not mentioned in the rules, restraint orders under the Justices Act often overlap with orders under family violence legislation. The interaction is likely governed by the Act itself. The rules do not address priority, cross-vesting or enforcement of orders between regimes. Practitioners must check the Act for provisions about when a justice must consider a family violence order application instead of a Part XA restraint order, and vice versa.

Criminal Code (Tas) and other offence-creating laws. The rules do not create offences, but a breach of a restraint order made under Part XA is likely an offence under the Act, carrying penalties. The rules ensure that the order is properly served so that a breach charge can be sustained. The evidentiary provisions (endorsement of service as prima facie evidence) assist in proving that the respondent knew the order existed.

Electronic filing laws. The rules do not create a general electronic filing regime; they rely on the mechanism in the Justices Rules 2003. That mechanism likely incorporates requirements for electronic signatures, authentication and security. The rules do not override those requirements but add the specific duty to retain the original signed application.

Common law rules of evidence. The rules modify the usual common law requirement for viva voce evidence at hearings. Rule 8(1) allows evidence by affidavit at the hearing of most Part XA applications. This overrides the ordinary rule that evidence should be oral and tested by cross-examination. However, the right to require cross-examination under rule 8(3) restores some of the traditional safeguards. The rules also create a statutory presumption of authenticity for endorsements of service (rule 6(9), rule 9(9)) - that the signature is that of the person it purports to be and the statements are true, until the contrary is shown. This evidential shortcut reduces the need to call the server in every case but can be rebutted.

The Justices (Restraint Orders) Rules 2023 (SR 2023-064) were notified in the Gazette on 20 September 2023 and took effect on 18 December 2023. There are no amendments listed in the source. The rules are relatively new and have not been amended since commencement. This is unsurprising for a new procedural instrument; amendments may occur if practice reveals gaps or if the Act is amended.

The rules were made under the rule-making power in the Justices Act 1959, and they repeal any earlier rules dealing with the same subject matter (although the source does not state that explicitly; normally commencement replaces existing rules). They sit alongside the Justices Rules 2003, which have been amended many times. Practitioners should check whether the 2003 rules have been amended in ways that affect references incorporated into these rules (e.g., rule 20 of the 2003 rules may have been substituted or renumbered).

It is also possible that Part XA of the Act has been amended since the rules were made. The rules operate subject to Part XA, and if the Act changes, the rules may need updating. For example, if a new type of order is added to Part XA, the rules’ definitions may not cover it, and the procedures may not be apt. As of the version provided, the rules reference sections 106B, 106C, 106G, 106GA and 106GD. Any amendment to those sections (or insertion of new sections) would affect the scope of the rules.

The rules are administered by the Department of Justice. Any future amendments are likely to be made by further statutory rules published in the Gazette. Practitioners should monitor the Tasmanian legislation website for amendments.

Given the absence of amendment history, the rules are still in their original form. The lack of amendments suggests no immediate procedural problems have been identified, but it also means there is no judicial interpretation of their provisions yet.

The source does not cite any cases, and the rules are too recent (effective December 2023) and too procedural to have generated significant reported litigation. However, several observations are relevant:

• No named cases. The rules do not refer to any judicial decisions. The user instruction says “Only name cases the source names.” Since none are named, we cannot discuss specific case law.

• Potential for future litigation. The key provisions likely to be litigated are the dispensing power (rule 10), the service requirements (rule 6), and the affidavit in reply rule (rule 7). For example, a respondent may argue that a justice’s decision to dispense with service was an error, or that the applicant did not comply with the requirement to serve as soon as practicable. The endorsement of service as prima facie evidence may be challenged under the “until the contrary is shown” qualification.

• Interpretation of “as soon as practicable”. The phrase appears in rules 6(2), 6(3)(c), 6(5), 7(4), 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 9(5), 9(6). This is inherently fact-dependent and may generate disputes about whether a delay was reasonable.

• Cross-examination notice procedures. Rule 8(3) requires “notice in writing” to require attendance for cross-examination. There may be disputes about what constitutes sufficient notice, or whether the notice was given in time.

• Constitutional or jurisdictional issues. These are unlikely, but if a restraint order is sought against a person who does not reside in Tasmania, the service provisions may interact with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). The rules do not mention interstate service; practitioners must apply the cross-vesting laws.

• Relationship with family violence proceedings. If a restraint order under Part XA is sought while a family violence order is in place, courts may have to consider whether the procedures in these rules are appropriate or whether they are overridden by other legislation. This has not been litigated under these rules.

In summary, there is no known litigation specifically on these rules. Their interpretation will be guided by general principles of statutory interpretation of procedural rules and by existing case law on the Justices Act 1959 generally.

Several provisions of the rules contain traps for the unwary.

The difference in service requirements between restraint order applications and variation applications. Rule 6(2) requires personal service for the initial application for a restraint order. There is no provision for substituted service if personal service fails. In contrast, rule 6(3) and (5) require service on the respondent and beneficiaries in accordance with rule 20 of the Justices Rules 2003, which does allow substituted service (e.g., by post or left at last known address with court approval). If a respondent evades service, the applicant cannot rely on substituted service for the initial order; they must seek a warrant under section 106C(1) to have the respondent apprehended and then serve the application at the time of apprehension (rule 6(10)). This is a heavy mechanism for a purely procedural failure.

Unlike other types of civil applications, the rules do not permit service by prepaid post or left at an address as default. The mandatory personal service requirement is strict. Practitioners must plan for this cost and potentially arrange for the police to serve the application.

The affidavit in reply rule (rule 7) is limited to “defending” the application. The rule does not require the respondent to file an affidavit; it is only a right. However, if the respondent wishes to raise a defence, the affidavit must be filed at the earliest practicable date before the return date. If the respondent files late, the court may not consider it. Also, the affidavit must be concise and contain only relevant answers and supporting matters. Expanding the scope may lead to the affidavit being struck out or ignored.

Rule 7(2) excludes several types of applications from the requirement to file an affidavit in reply. This can cause confusion. For example, an application for leave to make a restraint order (s 106B(3)) or for leave to vary etc. (s 106G(2)) does not trigger the respondent’s right to file an affidavit in reply under the rule. The respondent must take other steps if they wish to oppose leave.

The requirement for an applicant other than a police officer to file an affidavit, not a statutory declaration, exposes them to cross-examination. While a police officer can simply provide a statutory declaration and is not required to attend the hearing unless a party requires it (rule 8(2)), a non-police applicant who makes an affidavit may be required to attend and be cross-examined. If they fail to attend after a notice, the court may refuse to allow their affidavit (rule 8(3)). This creates a personal risk for the applicant.

The electronic filing rules (rule 5) are only available to “authorised sources” approved by the Chief Magistrate. A private applicant cannot use electronic filing. This creates an inequality of access: approved agencies (likely police and possibly legal aid) have lower transaction costs. An applicant who is not an authorised source must physically attend the clerk’s office to file, or use a lawyer who is authorised.

Rule 5(4) requires an authorised source to retain the original signed application in a safe place. This obligation is ongoing. If the original is lost or destroyed, and a magistrate requests production, the authorised source may face an adverse inference or lose the ability to prove the authenticity of the application.

The dispensing power in rule 10 is subject to Part XA of the Act, but the rule itself does not list the Act’s mandatory provisions that cannot be dispensed with. Practitioners cannot rely on the rule as a catch-all excuse. They must check the Act to see if a particular requirement is substantive and thus beyond the justice’s power to waive.

The clerk’s duties to notify the Commissioner of Police etc. are framed in mandatory language (“must”), but there is no penalty for the clerk’s non-compliance. If the clerk fails to notify, the affected person may not know of a variation or revocation, but the order itself remains valid. This places the onus on parties to follow up.

Endorsement of service is prima facie evidence, not conclusive. A respondent can challenge service (e.g., by claiming they were never served or served on a different date). The endorsement is not conclusive proof; the court may require the server to give sworn evidence.

Compliance requires attention to each procedural step, with documented evidence at every stage.

Step 1: Prepare the application. Identify the specific order sought (restraint order, interim restraint order, variation, extension, revocation, registration of external order, cancellation of registration). Ensure the application is in writing and clearly specifies the order. If the applicant is a police officer, accompany the application with a statutory declaration stating the information is true to the best of the officer’s knowledge and belief. If the applicant is any other person, use an affidavit (sworn before a justice of the peace or commissioner for declarations). The application must be filed with the clerk. For applications for a restraint order that are filed after a warrant has been issued, state that fact.

Step 2: Filing. If you are an authorised source (approved by the Chief Magistrate under rule 65(2) of the Justices Rules 2003), you may file the application by electronic means. When doing so, state in the electronic application that you have complied with the retention requirement. Physically retain the original signed application in a secure location. If you are not an authorised source, file the application in person or by mail at the clerk’s office. The clerk will seal the application and return the sealed copy.

Step 3: Service of the application. For an application for a restraint order, arrange personal service of the sealed copy on the respondent as soon as practicable after filing. Do not rely on post or substituted service. If the respondent cannot be found, consider applying for a warrant under section 106C(1) of the Act to apprehend the respondent; then serve the application when the warrant is executed (rule 6(10)). For an application for variation, extension or revocation, serve the sealed copy on the respondent and on every other person aged 14 or over who benefits from the order. Use the method set out in rule 20 of the Justices Rules 2003 (which may allow substituted service). For an application for cancellation of registration of an external order, serve the respondent in accordance with rule 20 of the 2003 rules, unless the applicant is the beneficiary of the order.

Step 4: Endorsement and lodgement of service. The person who serves the application must immediately endorse a copy of the sealed copy (or a copy of the application for warrant cases) with a memorandum stating the day, place and mode of service, and sign it. Lodge that endorsed copy with the clerk for the district in which the application is returnable as soon as practicable.

Step 5: Filing an affidavit in reply (respondent only). If you are the respondent and wish to defend, prepare a concise affidavit containing only relevant answers to the applicant’s evidence and any matters necessary to support your case and define the issues. File it at the earliest practicable date before the return date. Serve it on the applicant using the method in rule 20 of the Justices Rules 2003 (substituted service allowed).

Step 6: Hearing. Evidence is generally given by affidavit. The maker of the affidavit is not required to attend unless a party or the justice requires it. If you are a party and you want to cross-examine the other side’s deponent, give written notice to that person. If the deponent fails to attend, ask the court to refuse to allow the affidavit, to impose conditions, or to adjourn.

Step 7: Service of the order. Once a restraint order or interim order is made, serve a copy on the person against whom it is made as soon as practicable. The server must endorse a copy of the order with a memorandum stating it has been served, sign it, date it, and forward that endorsed copy to the clerk. The clerk will then notify the applicant, the protected person and the Commissioner of Police.

Step 8: Variations, extensions, revocations. Follow the same service steps as for the initial application but also serve all beneficiaries aged 14 or over. If the order is varied or extended, serve the varied/extended order personally on the respondent. Forward the endorsed copy to the clerk.

Step 9: Recordkeeping. Authorised sources must retain the original signed application. All parties should retain copies of all applications, affidavits, endorsed copies and correspondence with the clerk.

Step 10: Seek dispensation if needed. If a procedural requirement cannot be met (e.g., service impossible because respondent cannot be found despite warrant), apply to a justice for an order dispensing with compliance. Be prepared to show why compliance is impracticable and why it is just to waive the requirement. The justice may impose conditions.

Step 11: Monitor notifications. The clerk has duties to notify, but parties should not rely solely on that. Follow up with the clerk to ensure all necessary parties have been informed, especially if personal safety is at stake.