The issue of whether a respondent to a non-molestation order application was an associated person, was to be construed purposively. The system was designed to afford a swift and accessible procedure. There had been present three of the admirable Crake signposts of co-habitation, a sexual relationship, financial support, and a respondent’s admissions against interest. If they had taken the co-habitation point first, the association would have become an open question.
Citations:
Times 24-May-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission; Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission 1982
The claimants lived in the same house. The woman had severe injuries, and her male friend had at one time moved into the house to assist her care. She later moved to live with him, leaving her husband. There was no sexual relationship. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Magistrates
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80722
