header-logo header-logo

02 October 2014
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

Non-mol beneficiaries

A non-molestation order can be made which prohibits the respondent molesting an associated person or relevant child (Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996), s42). Does this mean that the order can restrain molestation of not just the applicant (or a relevant child) but other persons who are not parties to the application but are associated with the respondent? The list of associated persons is, of course, very wide.

The terms of s 42(1),(2)(a) of the FLA 1996 could be read as allowing the court, on an application by an associated person, to make an order for the benefit of a third party who is associated with the respondent. In our view, if an applicant seeks protection for another adult (eg a new cohabiting partner), the proper course for the court, if satisfied that an order should be made for the partner’s protection, would be to join them and make an order under s 42(2) (b); that person is then treated as an applicant by virtue of s 42(4B). The court should be slow to make an order protecting the non-applicant associated person without clear evidence that the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll