Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 shortlist announced
The shortlist for the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 has been announced.The LexisNexis Legal Awards will be held at the Park Plaza Riverbank on 13 March 2025. You can book your table here.The shortlist...
Costs in Financial Remedy Proceedings: an overview
Jack Harris, St John’s ChambersVivien Croly, St John’s ChambersUntil relatively recently, practitioners dealing with financial remedy work were rarely troubled by the issue of costs at the conclusion...
Revoking a will by marriage or civil partnership: an argument for abolition
Andrew Bainham, Emeritus Reader in Family Law and Policy, University of Cambridge A will is revoked by the testator’s marriage or civil partnership. The Law Commission has consulted twice on...
Non-existent children – a judicial dilemma
Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn July 2024, after three years of hearings and adjournments, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot handed down her judgment in AA v...
Disability as a section 25 factor
Naomh Gallagher, St John’s BuildingsDespite disability being a Section 25 factor in its own right, there is a dearth of resources specifically addressing the same. Often rolled into earning capacity,...
View all articles
Authors

The Ouster Dilema

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Title : The Ouster Dilema
Slug : the-ouster-dilema
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Apr 2, 2009, 05:35 AM
Article ID : 87123

District Judge Michael Segal, Principal Registry of the Family Division

When a marriage or other relationship breaks down and the parties continue to live under the same roof they often suffer intolerable stress caused by harassment, or even violence. When this becomes too much for them, one of them applies for an ouster order against the other. When there are children, they suffer as much as, or more, than their parents. I assume for the purposes of this article that the parties are married, and that it is the wife who applies for the ouster order.

By s 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 the court has not only power to grant a non-molestation order, but also power to regulate the occupation of the home by making arrangements for the parties to share it if possible and, if this is not possible, by ordering one of them to leave it. Thus the court may order the husband to leave the home immediately, or within a specified time. If it does, his rights of ownership are not affected. These are usually decided in the subsequent ancillary relief proceedings. The court has to carry out a balancing exercise. It has to take into account all the circumstances including:

  • the housing needs and housing resources of each of the parties and of any relevant child;
  • the financial resources of each of the parties;
  • the likely effect of any order, or of any decision not to exercise its powers, on the health, safety or well-being of the parties and of any relevant child; and
  • the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise.

 

If the court finds that the husband is likely to cause the wife or any child significant harm, then it has to decide whether the harm caused to him by having to leave will be greater than the harm caused to her or the child by his remaining.

In practice, the wife usually applies to the court ex parte for non-molestation and ouster orders. In the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD) she applies to the district judge for the day and her application is supported by an affidavit setting out her allegations against the husband and the reasons why he should leave. It is very rare indeed for her affidavit to justify an ex parte ouster order. If the district judge for the day considers that her affidavit makes out a prima facie case for protecting her or the children, he will make a non-molestation order and, where appropriate, an order giving her exclusive use of part of the home. He will fix the earliest possible return date and order the husband to file an affidavit in reply. In the PRFD the return date for a half hour hearing will be about 4 to 6 weeks after the ex parte application but the husband is told that he may apply on 48 hours' notice to discharge or vary the order.

To read the rest of this article, see April [2009] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from