DS v AC [2023] EWFC 46 (29 March 2023)

DS v AC [2023] EWFC 46 (29 March 2023)

The conduct complained of did not amount to molestation or harassment sufficient to justify the intervention of the court. There was no significant risk of immediate harm to justify a without notice order, and by the time of the application, the conduct had ceased. The statutory criteria under s.42 and s.45 Family Law Act 1996 were not met.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 46
Parties
Applicant: DS; Respondent: AC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Non Molestation Order Application / Judgment on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of Non-Molestation Order refused
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Without Notice Applications, Molestation Definition, Harassment, Family Law Act 1996
Family Law Non Molestation Orders Without Notice Applications Molestation Definition Harassment Family Law Act 1996

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DS

Applicant

AC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Non Molestation Order Application / Judgment on Application for Reinstatement After Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory criteria for a Non-Molestation Order under s.42 Family Law Act 1996 are met
  2. 2 Whether a without notice order was justified under s.45 Family Law Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the conduct complained of amounts to 'molestation' warranting court intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct complained of did not amount to molestation or harassment sufficient to justify the intervention of the court. There was no significant risk of immediate harm to justify a without notice order, and by the time of the application, the conduct had ceased. The statutory criteria under s.42 and s.45 Family Law Act 1996 were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of Non-Molestation Order refused