Grubb v Grubb

Grubb v Grubb

The judge was entitled to make the occupation order under s.33(6) given the wife's need for separation, the husband's failure to provide concrete alternative accommodation proposals, and the evidence of controlling and harassing conduct. The seriousness of the order was mitigated by the husband's available alternative accommodation and resources, and the order was intended to be temporary until the wife could move to other suitable premises.

Parties
Applicant/husband: Anthony Arbuthnot Watkins Grubb; Respondent/wife: Jennifer Frances Grubb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Occupation and Non Molestation Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Occupation Orders, Non Molestation Orders, Divorce, Ancillary Relief, Matrimonial Home Rights
Family Law Occupation Orders Non Molestation Orders Divorce Ancillary Relief Matrimonial Home Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Arbuthnot Watkins Grubb

Applicant/husband

Jennifer Frances Grubb

Respondent/wife

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Occupation and Non Molestation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting an occupation order requiring the husband to vacate the matrimonial home under s.33(6) of the Family Law Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the non-molestation order was justified in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the occupation order was a premature or pragmatic rearrangement rather than a necessary measure

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to make the occupation order under s.33(6) given the wife's need for separation, the husband's failure to provide concrete alternative accommodation proposals, and the evidence of controlling and harassing conduct. The seriousness of the order was mitigated by the husband's available alternative accommodation and resources, and the order was intended to be temporary until the wife could move to other suitable premises.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Husband's application for permission to appeal against the occupation order refused
  • Husband's application for permission to appeal against the non-molestation order refused