Dingba v Dingba [2025] EWFC 498 (B) (02 May 2025)

Dingba v Dingba [2025] EWFC 498 (B) (02 May 2025)

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, any of the allegations of molestation. The evidence was found to be unreliable, uncorroborated, and in some instances deliberately untruthful. The respondent's evidence was preferred. The applicant also breached her duty of full and frank disclosure on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 498 (B)
Parties
Applicant: Tessy Dingba; Respondent: David Chinedu Dingba; Qualified Legal Representative (for Applicant, Cross Examined Respondent): Neermal Soburrun; Qualified Legal Representative (for Respondent, Cross Examined Applicant): Daberechi Iwuoha
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Non Molestation Order / Final Hearing on Return Date
Outcome
Application for final non-molestation order dismissed; existing order discharged.
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Order, Ex Parte Application, Domestic Abuse Allegations, Full and Frank Disclosure, Discharge of Order
Family Law Non Molestation Order Ex Parte Application Domestic Abuse Allegations Full and Frank Disclosure Discharge of Order

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Tessy Dingba

Applicant

David Chinedu Dingba

Respondent

Neermal Soburrun

Qualified Legal Representative (for Applicant, Cross Examined Respondent)

Daberechi Iwuoha

Qualified Legal Representative (for Respondent, Cross Examined Applicant)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Non Molestation Order / Final Hearing on Return Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has proved allegations of molestation justifying a final non-molestation order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant breached the duty of full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, any of the allegations of molestation. The evidence was found to be unreliable, uncorroborated, and in some instances deliberately untruthful. The respondent's evidence was preferred. The applicant also breached her duty of full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application. Accordingly, the non-molestation order was discharged.

Court Disposition

Application for final non-molestation order dismissed; existing order discharged.

Orders

  • The non-molestation order made by DJ Pitman on 7 November 2024 is discharged.