The defendant appealed a refusal to discharge a restraining order made under the Act in 1999. The order arose from acts of harassment committed by the defendant against his former wife. The court had applied the Nottingham Justices case to say that they need not hear a second renewed application unless there had been a material change in circumstances.
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge had been correct: ‘absent an appeal, a restraining order remains good and valid according to its terms, including a term which extends it until further order. It seems to me that it follows that on an application or further application to discharge the applicant must show that something has changed so that the continuance of the order is no longer necessary or appropriate. Unless that is so, the applicant would be entitled to have the merits of an earlier decision or decisions re-determined anew without having appealed them’
Judges:
Laws LJ, David Steel J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1215 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Nottingham Justices, ex parte Davis QBD 1980
On a second or subsequent application for bail, magistrates need only ask first whether there had been a material change in circumstancs since the original order. If there had been no change, there was no need to look at the facts underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227047
