Associated Persons

G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) (FD TLR 24 May)

It would be most unfortunate if s62(3) of the Family Law Act 1996 defining ‘associated persons’ were to be narrowly construed so as to exclude borderline cases. Section 62(3)(b) provides that a person is associated with another person if they are cohabitants or former cohabitants, whilst s62(3)(c) includes persons who live or have lived in the same household, otherwise than merely by reason of one of them being the other’s employee, tenant, lodger or boarder. In the present case the Family Proceedings Court had declined jurisdiction in an application for a non-molestation order on the grounds of the existence of separate households and the applicant’s own statement that the parties strictly speaking did not live together although they had stayed together in one or other household for several days each week. By deciding the s62(3)(c) point first and by rejecting it, the justices had effectively precluded themselves from making a different finding under s62(3)(b). Three of the admirable signposts set out in Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission ([1982] 1 All ER 4998) were present here: a sexual relationship, some financial support and the respondent’s evidence demonstrating that from his perspective the parties were cohabiting. Where domestic violence is concerned courts should give those provisions of the Family Law Act that deal with non-molestation orders a purposive construction and should not decline jurisdiction unless the facts of the case are plainly incapable of being brought within the statute. The justices had misdirected themselves in several material respects and the evidence was sufficient to support the proposition that the applicant and the respondent were cohabitants within the meaning of s62(3)(b).