G v G (Occupation Order: Conduct)
In deciding whether to make an occupation order, the court considers the effect of the respondent's conduct on the applicant, and it is not necessary to show that the respondent intended to cause harm.
Facts
Mr and Mrs G were living in the same house in the course of divorce proceedings, and the atmosphere was extremely tense, with frequent arguments affecting the children. The wife applied for an occupation order excluding the husband from the home. The judge refused the order, finding that the husband's behaviour, although unpleasant, was not intended to harm the wife or the children. The wife appealed.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Thorpe LJ said that the judge had been wrong to focus on the husband's intention, because under section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 the court must consider the effect of the respondent's conduct on the applicant and the children, not his intention. However, the judge had been entitled to conclude that the situation, although very unpleasant, did not justify the draconian step of excluding the husband from his home, since both parties were responsible for the tension and the divorce proceedings would soon resolve the matter.
Related cases on domestic abuse and occupation orders
- B v B (Occupation Order) [1999] 1 FLR 715
- Chalmers v Johns [1999] 1 FLR 392
- F v M [2021] EWFC 4
- 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.
