header-logo header-logo

Non-mol beneficiaries

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

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll