Moore v Moore [2004] EWCA Civ 1243 (29 July 2004)

Moore v Moore [2004] EWCA Civ 1243 (29 July 2004)

The statutory protection of occupation rights under the Family Law Act 1996 is not lost merely because of a change in the nature of the qualifying contract; if the statutory conditions are met, rights may be restored by a new tenancy. However, a short-term licence is insufficient to found an application. The appeal was dismissed as the wife did not have a sufficient present entitlement.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1243
Parties
Appellant: Moore; Respondent: Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Family Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupation Orders, Matrimonial Home Rights, Jurisdictional Conflict, Divorce Proceedings
Family Law Occupation Orders Matrimonial Home Rights Jurisdictional Conflict Divorce Proceedings

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moore

Appellant

Moore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Family Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife is entitled to an occupation order under section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 after the termination of the husband's tenancy
  2. 2 Whether a new or revived tenancy can restore matrimonial home rights under the Family Law Act 1996
  3. 3 Proper construction of section 30(7) and (8) of the Family Law Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory protection of occupation rights under the Family Law Act 1996 is not lost merely because of a change in the nature of the qualifying contract; if the statutory conditions are met, rights may be restored by a new tenancy. However, a short-term licence is insufficient to found an application. The appeal was dismissed as the wife did not have a sufficient present entitlement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • 50 per cent of costs awarded in favour of the Respondent