SD v AFH (Appeal: Coercive and controlling behaviour: Inference or speculation) [2019] EWHC 1513 (Fam) (13 June 2019)

SD v AFH (Appeal: Coercive and controlling behaviour: Inference or speculation) [2019] EWHC 1513 (Fam) (13 June 2019)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings of coercive and controlling behaviour and assault were justified on the evidence, the fact-finding process was fair, and any procedural defects in the making of the non-molestation order were not material or were properly waived. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law, fact, or procedure that would justify appellate intervention.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1513 (Fam)
Parties
Appellant: SD; 1st Respondent: AFH; 2nd Respondent: OMD (Through his Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Judgment on Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Coercive and Controlling Behaviour, Fact Finding Hearing, Non Molestation Order, Appeals Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Burden and Standard of Proof, Article 6 and 8 ECHR Rights
Family Law Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Fact Finding Hearing Non Molestation Order Appeals Procedure Procedural Fairness Burden and Standard of Proof Article 6 and 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SD

Appellant

AFH

1st Respondent

OMD (Through his Guardian)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the findings of coercive and controlling behaviour and assault were justified on the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the fact-finding process was procedurally fair
  3. 3 Whether the non-molestation order was valid given alleged procedural defects

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings of coercive and controlling behaviour and assault were justified on the evidence, the fact-finding process was fair, and any procedural defects in the making of the non-molestation order were not material or were properly waived. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law, fact, or procedure that would justify appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused and, if granted, appeal dismissed
  • Findings of fact and non-molestation order upheld