Background:-
The applicant sought continued protection under an existing non-molestation order. The respondent appeared as a litigant in person.
Relevant Law Family Law Act 1996 – Part IV, specifically applications to continue or vary non-molestation orders.
Issues
- Whether the existing non-molestation order remained appropriate
- Potential for contested hearing given the respondent’s stance as a LIP
Challenges
The risk of unnecessary conflict was high given the respondent’s unrepresented status. Ensuring that the applicant’s safety was prioritised while also steering the matter away from escalation required a pragmatic approach.
Decision
The matter concluded by agreement. The existing non-molestation order remains in force without variation. For assistance in this area of law, contact clerks@anvilchambers.co.uk