Case No. BM22F06163

1.This judgment concerns an application for an order under the Family Law Act 1996 (“FLA”), commonly known as a Non-Molestation Order. There is nothing unusual about this particular case, and such applications rarely come before a High Court Judge. However, there has been no published judgment on such an application for some years, and I felt it would be helpful to set out the basic principles that apply to such applications and orders. I do this in part because there has been a significant growth in the number of such applications during the Pandemic, and in many parts of the country that increased number has not fallen back to pre-Pandemic levels. A large proportion of the applications are made without notice (ex parte) and it may be useful for practitioners to be reminded of the very strict criteria for the making of such orders ex parte.2.The Applicant, DS, appeared before me in person, and the Respondent, AC, was represented by Ms Goodman. I am grateful for the very clear way Ms Goodman set out her case in her Position Statement.3.The Applicant made a without notice application to the Court for a Non-Molestation Order on 8 November 2022. In that application she filed a statement setting out her case, as I summarise below.4.The Applicant and the Respondent started a relationship in October 2021 and the relationship ended by WhatsApp message on 16 September 2022. The parties had a professional relationship through a networking group. She recounts that the relationship became problematic and there were a number of arguments, but she expressly says that the Respondent was not verbally (or physically) abusive to her. She felt that he was controlling towards her, frequently phoning and monitoring where she was. He became increasingly demanding of her in terms of answering his calls and being available. She also says that the Respondent was controlling of her by buying her extravagant presents and then accusing her of being ungrateful. 5.In June 2022 the Applicant became aware that there were a number of complaints about the Respondent in the networking group, around his behaviour to women. He said these allegations were false, but the Applicant became more suspicious and fearful of him. The allegations were about narcissistic behaviour and attitudes.6.The relationship was plainly going downhill with the Respondent texting her 20-30 times a day. There was an incident in August when they went away together and there was an argument over whether the Respondent was flirting with a waitress.7.I recount these details because it can be seen that this is a fairly typical account of a failing relationship, and much of the Applicant’s account is open to different perceptions of what was happening between the parties. 8.By September the parties were seeing each other less, albeit the Applicant felt the Respondent was manipulating her by encouraging her to drink too much alcohol.9.However, from September the Applicant started to work in the Respondent’s business part time because she needed the money. She felt that the Respondent then became even more demanding. On 16 September she sent him a text ending the relationship and saying she would pursue “formal action if he contacted [her]”. She blocked the Respondent after sending the message. 10.The Respondent did continue to communicate with her by ringing her phone “on a few occasions”. He then emailed her, and she says he threatened her career if she told people about his behaviour. I have read the email of 18 September and it is rather sad, but in my view is in no sense controlling or threatening. 11.There was then a financial dispute within the context of the business relationship and the Respondent sent the Applicant an email about her phone contract. The Applicant then reported the Respondent’s behaviour to the police, and they advised her to apply for a Non-Molestation Order. 12.14 October was the last contact from the Respondent to the Applicant in an email where he threatened to take her to the Small Claims Court if she did not pay the money that she owed him. She then received a letter from the Small Claims Court saying that he had brought proceedings for £1750 relating to the phone contract. She then counter-claimed for wages owed.13.There is an email from the Respondent to the Applicant on 3 November in which he says he has paid the wages invoice. He says he was hurt and angry, and that two close relatives had died that month and the invoice slipped his mind. This email is entirely appropriate and in no sense threatening. 14.On 8 November the Applicant made a without notice application for a Non-Molestation Order saying the matter was urgent because the Respondent’s “behaviour is very unpredictable ….” and that if it was on notice the Respondent might try to dissuade her from making the application. 15.On 8 December DJ Dickinson refused the application and set the matter down for an On Notice hearing on 16 December. The Applicant did not attend the hearing and the application was dismissed. The Applicant then emailed the Court to explain her non-attendance. DJ Dickinson ordered a Directions Hearing on 14 March 2023 to consider whether the application should be reinstated.16.The Applicant appeared before me on 14 March and argued that the application should be reinstated and an Order made. Ms Goodman, on behalf of the Respondent, submitted that there was no basis to make the order, and that the statutory tests under s.42 of the FLA were not met.