Haggarty v. Woodrow [2005] ScotSC 68 (10 October 2005)

Haggarty v. Woodrow [2005] ScotSC 68 (10 October 2005)

The Defender's pattern of abusive, violent, and impulsive behaviour towards the Pursuer and others, including incidents witnessed by the child, established a substantial risk of harm and justified the grant of a permanent interdict to protect the Pursuer. The welfare of the child Lauren required that no contact order be made in favour of the Defender, as such contact would not be in her best interests given the risk of exposure to violence and emotional harm. There was no necessity for an interdict preventing the Defender from interfering with the Pursuer's care of Lauren, as he had not sought such contact since July 2004.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 68
Parties
Pursuer: Miss Sharon Haggarty; Defender: Mr Craig Alexander Woodrow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Law Interdict and Contact / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Permanent interdict granted against the Defender in favour of the Pursuer; no contact order made in favour of the Defender; no interdict granted regarding interference with care of Lauren; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Interdict (injunction), Child Contact Orders, Best Interests of the Child, Domestic Violence, Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Family Law Child Law Domestic Abuse Interdict (injunction) Child Contact Orders Best Interests of the Child Domestic Violence Parental Rights and Responsibilities

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Sharon Haggarty

Pursuer

Mr Craig Alexander Woodrow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Interdict and Contact / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent interdict should be granted against the Defender to protect the Pursuer from abuse and harassment
  2. 2 Whether the Defender should be granted contact with the child Lauren under Section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether an interdict is necessary to prevent the Defender from interfering with the Pursuer's care of Lauren

Ratio Decidendi

The Defender's pattern of abusive, violent, and impulsive behaviour towards the Pursuer and others, including incidents witnessed by the child, established a substantial risk of harm and justified the grant of a permanent interdict to protect the Pursuer. The welfare of the child Lauren required that no contact order be made in favour of the Defender, as such contact would not be in her best interests given the risk of exposure to violence and emotional harm. There was no necessity for an interdict preventing the Defender from interfering with the Pursuer's care of Lauren, as he had not sought such contact since July 2004.

Court Disposition

Permanent interdict granted against the Defender in favour of the Pursuer; no contact order made in favour of the Defender; no interdict granted regarding interference with care of Lauren; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Interdicts the Defender from molesting the Pursuer by abusing her verbally, threatening her, telephoning her or sending her text messages, putting her into a state of fear and alarm or distress, and from approaching her.
  • No order for contact between the Defender and the child Lauren.