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

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll