P (A Child: Extended Civil Restraint Order - Abusive Applicant) [2023] EWFC 110 (B) (15 June 2023)

P (A Child: Extended Civil Restraint Order - Abusive Applicant) [2023] EWFC 110 (B) (15 June 2023)

All of AB's applications were found to be totally without merit, lacking any evidential basis, and constituting an abuse of process. The non-molestation order remains necessary for the protection of CD and P. There was no evidence of bias or grounds for recusal, nor any justification for transfer of proceedings. AB's conduct warranted the imposition of an extended civil restraint order to prevent further vexatious litigation.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 110 (B)
Parties
Applicant: AB; Respondent: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Law Act 1996 and Related Children Act Proceedings / Judgment on Multiple Post Final Order Applications Including Applications to Vary/discharge Non Molestation Order, for a Non Molestation Order, for Recusal, and for Transfer of Proceedings
Outcome
All applications by AB dismissed. Extended civil restraint order imposed against AB for two years. Costs ordered against AB.
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Civil Restraint Orders, Recusal of Judge, Transfer of Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Family Law Civil Procedure Non Molestation Orders Civil Restraint Orders Recusal of Judge Transfer of Proceedings Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Act 1996 and Related Children Act Proceedings / Judgment on Multiple Post Final Order Applications Including Applications to Vary/discharge Non Molestation Order, for a Non Molestation Order, for Recusal, and for Transfer of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to discharge or vary the existing non-molestation order against AB
  2. 2 Whether to grant a non-molestation order against CD in favour of AB
  3. 3 Whether the judge should recuse herself for alleged bias

Ratio Decidendi

All of AB's applications were found to be totally without merit, lacking any evidential basis, and constituting an abuse of process. The non-molestation order remains necessary for the protection of CD and P. There was no evidence of bias or grounds for recusal, nor any justification for transfer of proceedings. AB's conduct warranted the imposition of an extended civil restraint order to prevent further vexatious litigation.

Court Disposition

All applications by AB dismissed. Extended civil restraint order imposed against AB for two years. Costs ordered against AB.

Orders

  • Dismissal of AB's application to discharge/vary non-molestation order against him
  • Dismissal of AB's application for a non-molestation order against CD