Chechi v Bashier & Ors [1999] EWCA Civ 962 (12 March 1999)

Chechi v Bashier & Ors [1999] EWCA Civ 962 (12 March 1999)

The judge was justified in refusing to grant non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 in this unusual family dispute, given the almost mandatory requirement to attach a power of arrest, the risk of abuse of such power, and the existence of alternative remedies. The family relationship was not merely incidental, but the judge's exercise of discretion was proper in the circumstances.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 962
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Gulnawaz Chechi; First Respondent: Mohammed Bashier; Second Respondent: Sajjad Bashier; Third Respondent: Rukshar Bashier; Fourth Respondent: Akhtar Bashier; Fifth Respondent: Tariq Bashier; Sixth Respondent: Ghaffar Bashier; Seventh Respondent: Amjad Bashier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Reading County Court Decision Refusing Non Molestation Orders Under Family Law Act 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Jurisdiction Under Family Law Act 1996, Discretionary Relief, Power of Arrest, Family Disputes
Family Law Civil Procedure Non Molestation Orders Jurisdiction Under Family Law Act 1996 Discretionary Relief Power of Arrest Family Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulnawaz Chechi

Applicant/appellant

Mohammed Bashier

First Respondent

Sajjad Bashier

Second Respondent

Rukshar Bashier

Third Respondent

Akhtar Bashier

Fourth Respondent

Tariq Bashier

Fifth Respondent

Ghaffar Bashier

Sixth Respondent

Amjad Bashier

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Reading County Court Decision Refusing Non Molestation Orders Under Family Law Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Law Act 1996 jurisdiction was properly invoked for a family dispute involving violence and threats between brothers and their families
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to grant non-molestation orders under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the power of arrest provisions made the relief inappropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was justified in refusing to grant non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 in this unusual family dispute, given the almost mandatory requirement to attach a power of arrest, the risk of abuse of such power, and the existence of alternative remedies. The family relationship was not merely incidental, but the judge's exercise of discretion was proper in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs save legal aid taxation
  • Existing orders against other respondents remain effective until expiry or discharge