SO, Re [2015] EWHC 935 (Fam) (01 April 2015)

SO, Re [2015] EWHC 935 (Fam) (01 April 2015)

The High Court has jurisdiction to extend protective injunctions made in wardship proceedings beyond the child's 18th birthday, either under the wardship or inherent jurisdiction, where there is ongoing risk to the applicant and the protected person, even if they are habitually resident abroad and irrespective of capacity, provided the court had jurisdiction at the outset and the individuals are British nationals. The risk posed by the respondent justifies continued protection.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 935 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: O; Respondent: P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Wardship/inherent Jurisdiction Application / Judgment on Application to Extend and Amend Injunction Beyond Child's 18th Birthday
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Injunctions Beyond Majority, Protection of Vulnerable Adults, Jurisdiction Over British Nationals Abroad, Non Molestation Orders, Article 8 ECHR 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O

Applicant

P

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship/inherent Jurisdiction Application / Judgment on Application to Extend and Amend Injunction Beyond Child's 18th Birthday

  1. 1 Whether the court can extend an injunction made in wardship proceedings beyond the child's 18th birthday
  2. 2 Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to protect a vulnerable adult in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the habitual residence of the protected persons in Australia precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by the English court

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction to extend protective injunctions made in wardship proceedings beyond the child's 18th birthday, either under the wardship or inherent jurisdiction, where there is ongoing risk to the applicant and the protected person, even if they are habitually resident abroad and irrespective of capacity, provided the court had jurisdiction at the outset and the individuals are British nationals. The risk posed by the respondent justifies continued protection.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Injunction extended beyond S's 18th birthday until further order, restraining the respondent from violence, harassment, proximity, and contact with the applicant and S;
  • Non-disclosure of applicant and S's identities and addresses;