Domestic abuse can manifest in many ways but is typically defined as being a pattern of abusive behaviour where the abuser exerts power and control over the victim.
Domestic abuse can take many forms including physical, sexual, financial, psychological and emotional. Abuse often manifests in subtle ways over time, and many victims of abuse become trapped and isolated in a web of coercive control and gaslighting. Control dominates. Victims often experience fear (which can pervades all areas of life) and manipulation leading to a loss of autonomy and self-worth.
We can assist in reporting matters to the police, seek Court Orders to protect you and your family (including Non-Molestation Orders and Occupation Orders) and can help you seek support from experienced third parties including therapists and domestic violence consultants.
Non-Molestation Orders:
A Non-Molestation Order is a legal order issued by a court to stop someone from harassing, threatening, or abusing another person or their children. It is designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, controlling behaviour, or harassment. Breaching a Non-Molestation Order is a criminal offence, which makes it a serious and effective tool for protection.
Occupation Orders:
An Occupation Order is a form of injunction which is issued under the Family Law Act 1996. It determines who is entitled to reside in a property and may restrict or exclude parties from certain areas of the home or the home entirely. These orders are particularly important in situations involving domestic abuse, where one party requires legal protection and security within the home.
We have extensive experience helping clients in high conflict cases and making emergency applications – often at the outset of proceedings relating to separation.
If you are experiencing or feel at risk of domestic abuse, we can help you to ensure your safety.
If you are facing a non-molestation or occupation order application that you feel is unjust, contains untruths or has been manipulated to gain procedural advantage, please make an enquiry or call us to discuss your specific needs and concerns. Should emergency or urgent orders be required, we will ensure a swift turnaround and dedicated support.
Frequently Asked Questions
Domestic abuse refers to an incident or pattern of controlling, coercive, threatening, violent or abusive behaviour between individuals who are or have been intimate partners or family members. It can take many forms, including psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional abuse, and affects people regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
A non-molestation order is a court order designed to protect the victim and any children from an abuser by preventing them from using or threatening violence, or from intimidating and harassing behaviours. The order can be tailored to the specific circumstances of the case and may prohibit the respondent from using or threatening violence, instructing others to do so, approaching the applicant’s home or workplace within a specified distance, or communicating directly or indirectly by any means.
If a non-molestation order is breached, this constitutes contempt of court and is also a criminal offence. In such cases, the police can arrest the respondent immediately without the need for a separate warrant, and the court may impose a fine or a custodial sentence of up to five years.
To apply, the applicant and respondent must be “associated persons.” This includes individuals who are or have been married or in a civil partnership, have cohabited or lived together in the same household (including in a relationship such as employer/employee or landlord/tenant), or are close relatives such as parent and child or siblings. It also covers those who have been engaged or agreed to enter into a civil partnership, those who have had an intimate relationship of significant duration, parents of the same child or individuals with parental responsibility, and parties to the same family court proceedings.
A non-molestation order can be made on a “without notice” basis, meaning the respondent is not informed of the application or present at the initial hearing. This is generally reserved for urgent situations where there is a risk of harm or intimidation if notice were given. In deciding whether to grant such an order, the court will consider factors such as the risk of significant harm if the order is not made immediately. Where an order is made without notice, a return hearing will always follow so that both parties can present their case.
An occupation order regulates who can live in the family home. It may exclude one party from the property, confirm a person’s right to remain in occupation or require one party to allow the other to enter. Unlike a non-molestation order, an occupation order does not automatically include a power of arrest. However, the court can attach one where there is evidence of violence or threats.
Eligibility to apply for an occupation order depends on your legal connection to the home and your relationship to the other party. You can apply if:
- You own or rent the home (either solely or jointly).
- You are or were married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting with the respondent.
- You have lived together in the home as a couple.
- You are a parent of a child who lives or has lived in the property.
When determining whether to grant an Occupation Order under section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996, the court carries out what is known as the balance of harm test. This process involves looking closely at the potential risks and impact on both parties.
One of the key questions the court must ask is whether the Applicant or any child involved is likely to suffer significant harm if the order is not made. If such harm is likely, the court is generally required to grant the order unless it is clear that doing so would cause greater harm to the Respondent.
In situations where this threshold is not met, the court still has the discretion to issue an Occupation Order. In those cases, the decision is guided by the core criteria test set out in section 33(6) of the Family Law Act which include:
- The housing needs of both parties, including whether alternative accommodation is available;
- Each parties’ financial circumstances and ability to secure housing;
- The impact that making or refusing the order may have on the physical and emotional welfare of all parties, including the children; and
• The nature of the parties’ conduct towards one another.
A non-molestation order prevents harassment or abuse, while an occupation order regulates living arrangements. They are often granted together in domestic abuse cases.
An Occupation Order can be made to last for a specified period, remain in place until a specified event takes place, or continue until the court makes a further order.
Breaching an Occupation Order is not automatically a criminal offence. However, if the court believes the Respondent has used or threatened violence against the Applicant, it can attach a power of arrest to the order. Where the power of arrest is in place, the police may arrest the Respondent without a warrant if the order is breached.
If no power of arrest is attached, the Applicant may apply to the court for a warrant for arrest. This requires sufficient evidence to convince the court there are reasonable grounds to believe the order has been breached.
The consequences of breaching an Occupation Order depend on the nature and severity of the incident. The court may impose a fine, a custodial sentence of up to two years, or both. Ultimately, the penalty will reflect the specific circumstances of the case.
Possibly.
The court’s approach to personal conduct before two recent High Court decisions In LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 and Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483 was that such conduct should only be raised where “obvious and gross” and where it would be “inequitable to disregard”. The case law has also established a norm that a direct financial consequence must be demonstrated. The bar was very high for personal conduct to be considered.
These two decisions have challenged the judicial approach to date, suggesting a more discretionary approach, perhaps opening the door to conduct arguments moving forwards. His Lordship placed less emphasis on a direct financial consequence being made out. He reasoned that although the financial consequences may be difficult to quantify, this does not mean they are absent and to ignore the conduct because its impact cannot be precisely measured risks producing an unfair outcome, and he considered conduct as part of the overall assessment of ‘fairness’.
