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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll