24-04-2026
A husband successfully resisted a non-molestation order application in the Family Court after the judge refused to grant an ex-parte (without notice) injunction and instead required both parties to attend a hearing.
Following the breakdown of the marriage, the wife applied urgently for a without-notice non-molestation order, alleging that arguments within the relationship had left her feeling intimidated. She relied primarily on a single allegation that the husband had threatened physical violence during an argument.
At the initial stage, the judge reviewed the written evidence and considered whether an immediate domestic abuse injunction should be granted without hearing from the husband. The court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate sufficient urgency or risk to justify an order being made on a without-notice basis.
Rather than granting the injunction, the judge directed that the matter be listed for a hearing in the Family Court so that both parties could give their accounts.
At the subsequent hearing, the husband denied making any threat and stated that he had no intention of harassing or contacting his wife who had voluntarily left the family home. Furthermore, the wife had been contacting the husband of her own volition which left him feeling vulnerable to further allegations of abuse.
The judge indicated that the evidence did not strongly support the need for a contested injunction.
The parties ultimately agreed to provide cross-undertakings to the court, each promising not to harass, threaten, or contact the other except for necessary practical matters. The court accepted the undertakings in place of a non-molestation order and the application was concluded without findings of fact.
The husband’s position was also that the timing of the application coincided with the wife seeking legal aid funding for financial remedy proceedings, although the court made no formal finding about the motivation for the application.
Key Takeaways