PF v CF

PF v CF

The judge was entitled to accept the wife's evidence of intimidation and controlling behaviour, finding significant harm within the meaning of s.33(7), and was justified in making an occupation order excluding the husband. The non-molestation order was justified based on ongoing intimidation and loitering, but the terms should be amended to prohibit intimidation, harassment, or pestering rather than violence, as no finding of violence was made.

Parties
Appellant: PF; Respondent: CF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Ruling
Outcome
Permission to appeal against the occupation order refused; permission to appeal against the non-molestation order granted and appeal allowed in part; non-molestation order amended; otherwise appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Occupation Order, Non Molestation Order, Domestic Violence, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Occupation Order Non Molestation Order Domestic Violence Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

PF

Appellant

CF

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was correct to grant an occupation order under s.33(7) Family Law Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to grant a non-molestation order under s.42 Family Law Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the terms and duration of the orders were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to accept the wife's evidence of intimidation and controlling behaviour, finding significant harm within the meaning of s.33(7), and was justified in making an occupation order excluding the husband. The non-molestation order was justified based on ongoing intimidation and loitering, but the terms should be amended to prohibit intimidation, harassment, or pestering rather than violence, as no finding of violence was made.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal against the occupation order refused; permission to appeal against the non-molestation order granted and appeal allowed in part; non-molestation order amended; otherwise appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Occupation order dated 22 September 2016 upheld; permission to appeal refused.
  • Non-molestation order amended to prohibit intimidation, harassment, or pestering; injunction against use or threat of violence deleted.