SD v AFH (Appeal: Coercive and controlling behaviour: Inference or speculation)

SD v AFH (Appeal: Coercive and controlling behaviour: Inference or speculation)

The appeal was refused because the judge at first instance properly applied the burden and standard of proof, drew legitimate inferences from the evidence, and procedural defects or new evidence did not undermine the findings. The non-molestation order was validly made and procedural arguments did not warrant discharge.

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 / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Coercive and Controlling Behaviour, Child Arrangements, Non Molestation Orders, Procedural Fairness, Burden of Proof, Appeals
Family Law Child Law Domestic Violence Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Child Arrangements Non Molestation Orders Procedural Fairness Burden of Proof +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SD

Appellant

AFH

1st Respondent

OMD (Through his Guardian)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings of coercive and controlling behaviour were properly made
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects or new evidence justified setting aside findings
  3. 3 Whether the non-molestation order was procedurally defective

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the judge at first instance properly applied the burden and standard of proof, drew legitimate inferences from the evidence, and procedural defects or new evidence did not undermine the findings. The non-molestation order was validly made and procedural arguments did not warrant discharge.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
  • Proceedings at first instance to continue on basis of findings made by HHJ Plunkett.