X v Y (Approved) [2020] IEHC 525 (21 October 2020)

X v Y (Approved) [2020] IEHC 525 (21 October 2020)

The court found abundant evidence supporting the existence of an immediate risk of significant harm to Ms X and her children, including psychological abuse, intimidation, and fear for safety. The statutory and factual conditions for an interim barring order under s.8 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 were met. The Circuit Court judge did not err in law or fact, and the order was properly issued and appropriately formulated.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 525
Parties
Applicant (now Respondent): X; Respondent (now Appellant): Y
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Interim Barring Order / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interim barring order affirmed
Legal Topics
Interim Barring Order, Protection Order, Judicial Separation, Psychological Abuse, Child Welfare
Family Law Domestic Violence Interim Barring Order Protection Order Judicial Separation Psychological Abuse Child Welfare

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant (now Respondent)

Y

Respondent (now Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Interim Barring Order / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim barring order under s.8 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 was properly granted
  2. 2 Whether there was an immediate risk of significant harm to the applicant or dependent persons
  3. 3 Whether the Circuit Court judge erred in law or fact in issuing the order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found abundant evidence supporting the existence of an immediate risk of significant harm to Ms X and her children, including psychological abuse, intimidation, and fear for safety. The statutory and factual conditions for an interim barring order under s.8 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 were met. The Circuit Court judge did not err in law or fact, and the order was properly issued and appropriately formulated.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interim barring order affirmed

Orders

  • Respondent (Mr Y) to leave the family home by specified date and time
  • Respondent prohibited from entering the family home except for limited child collection periods