Family

Non-molestation order - jurisdiction - statute to be purposively construedG v F (Non-molestation order: Jurisdiction): FD (Wall J):12 May 2000

Although the unmarried applicant had previously been granted a non-molestation order under s.42 of the Family Law Act 1996 in December 1999, the Wimbledon Family Proceedings Court in February 2000 refused to entertain her further application for such an order against the respondent, citing in their reasons the existence of separate households and the applicant's statement that the parties strictly speaking did not live together although they had stayed together in one or other household for several days each week, as evidence that the parties neither fell within s.62(3)(b) of the Act as co-habitants, nor into s.62(3)(c) as persons living within the same household other than under a commercial arrangement.

The applicant appealed.Sassa-Ann Amaouche (instructed by Costertons, Sutton) for the applicant.

The respondent did not appear and was not represented.Held, allowing the appeal, that, since the powers given to the court to make non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 were designed to provide swift and accessible protective remedies to persons of both sexes who were the victims of domestic violence provided that they were 'associated persons' within the meaning of s.62(3) of the Act, it would be most unfortunate if that section were to be narrowly construed so as to exclude borderline cases; and that the existence of a sexual relationship between them and of some financial support and the respondent's evident belief that the parties had been living together provided sufficient evidence to support the proposition that the parties were co-habitants within s.62(3)(b) of the 1996 Act.