E v E (Non-Molestation Order): CA 3 Jan 1994

H had been found to have twice attempted to rape W. She applied for ouster and non-molestation orders. She appealed against an order which allowed him to continue to live in the matrimonial home, but with a non-molestation provision excluding him from her bedroom and supported by a power of arrest. She had told the judge ‘I do not necessarily want him to go. I want my safety and peace.’
Held: After such a finding, an ouster order would be the normal consequence, but the judge retained a discretion to make his own judgment on the evidence. The order actually made was, in the light of W’s statement, within those open to him under that discretion. An ouster may not be necessary unless W says that it is required, even in otherwise clear circumstances.

Judges:

Balcombe LJ, Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80201