Should an applicant under the Family Law Act 1996 be seeking a non-molestation order and an occupation order for the respondent’s exclusion from the applicant’s home or a defined zone, is it not more satisfactory for the latter relief to be ordered as part of the non-molestation rather than as a separate occupation order? Also, if the respondent’s ouster is not being sought, is it not the better practice on a without notice hearing to run whatever order is made for the full period which is appropriate rather than list for reconsideration, and leave it to the respondent to apply to set aside, discharge or vary if so inclined?
We agree that it will generally be more satisfactory for exclusion to be dealt with as part of the non-molestation order. The practice of leaving it to the respondent to apply to disturb an order made without notice to them does not find favour with many judges. On the other hand, provided that the respondent’s Art 6 rights are properly protected by information to them on the mechanics for obtaining a hearing, some
