Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

OCCUPATION ORDER: Dolan v Corby [2011] EWCA Civ 1664

Sep 29, 2018, 19:26 PM
Slug : 2011EWCACiv1664
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 2, 2012, 11:13 AM
Article ID : 97813

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Rafferty, Black LJJ; 7 December 2012)

An appeal against a 6-month occupation order. The  parties lived together in the same rented property for 30 years . The woman granted without notice non-molestation order, the man moved out of the property. At the hearing to determine occupation order, the judge found the woman to be physically disabled, that she had a history of drug abuse, psychiatric problems and was vulnerable. He found the allegations of physical and sexual abuse unfounded but that the man had subjected the woman to verbal abuse and frequently belittled her. An occupation order was made under s 33 of the Family Law Act 1996.

The man's appeal was dismissed. The judge had conflated s 33(6) and 33(7) rather than considering them separately but that did not vitiate the exercise of his discretion . The judge had paid regard to the factors in s 33(6) and of those factors the woman's mental health problems and vulnerability had been very influential. The exceptional circumstances of making an occupation order outlined in G v G and Chalmers v Johns were not confined to violent behaviour or the threat of violent behaviour. The important thing was for the judge to identify and weigh up all the relevant features. Decision had been within the judge's discretion and sufficiently justified in his judgment.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from