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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll