B v B (Occupation Order)
Under the balance of harm test, an occupation order was refused against a violent husband because his child living with him would suffer greater harm than the wife and her child if he were excluded.
Facts
Mr and Mrs B lived in council accommodation with their baby and the husband's six year old son from a previous relationship. The husband was violent towards the wife, who left with the baby and was placed in temporary accommodation by the council. She applied for an occupation order excluding the husband from the home. If he were excluded, he and his son would be considered intentionally homeless, and they would have no right to be rehoused.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal set aside the occupation order. The court accepted that the wife and the baby would suffer significant harm if the order were not made, because of the husband's violence and their poor temporary accommodation. However, the husband's son would suffer greater harm if the order were made, because he would lose his home and would have to change schools, and the council would have no duty to rehouse them. The balance of harm favoured refusing the order. The court emphasised that the husband's violence was not condoned, and the case shows the importance of the welfare of all the children involved.
Related cases on domestic abuse and occupation orders
- Chalmers v Johns [1999] 1 FLR 392
- F v M [2021] EWFC 4
- G v G (Occupation Order: Conduct) [2000] 2 FLR 36
- Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
- Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re V; Re M; Re H [2001] Fam 260
- Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, [2015] AC 1732
- Nwogbe v Nwogbe [2000] 2 FLR 744
- Opuz v Turkey (2010) 50 EHRR 28
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
