Key Facts
- •Applicant (DS) and Respondent (AC) had a relationship that ended in September 2022.
- •Applicant made a without-notice application for a Non-Molestation Order in November 2022, alleging controlling behaviour and threats.
- •The application was initially refused by a District Judge.
- •The Applicant appealed the refusal.
- •The Respondent's conduct primarily consisted of numerous text messages and emails after the relationship ended, with one email containing alleged career threats.
- •No physical or verbal abuse was alleged.
Legal Principles
Power to grant Non-Molestation Orders
Family Law Act 1996, s.42
Power to grant ex parte Non-Molestation Orders
Family Law Act 1996, s.45
Definition of 'molestation'
Horner v Horner [1983] 4 FLR 50, C v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1625, Re T (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 1889
Criteria for without-notice orders
R v R [2014] EWFC 48
Outcomes
The application for a Non-Molestation Order was refused.
The court found insufficient evidence of 'molestation' to justify the order. The Respondent's conduct, while perhaps inappropriate, did not meet the threshold for significant harassment or alarm and distress, especially considering the lack of recent contact and the absence of a continuing risk of harm.
The initial without-notice application was correctly refused by the District Judge.
The circumstances did not meet the exceptional criteria for a without-notice order, as there was no significant risk of immediate harm given the absence of recent contact from the Respondent.