Re T (A Child)
[2017] EWCA Civ 1889 McFarlane LJ referred to these authorities with approval and said the courts should be very wary of offering any further precision to the definition of “molestation”. He went on to say at [42]:“42.When determining whether or not particular conduct is sufficient to justify granting a non-molestation order, the primary focus, as established in the consistent approach of earlier authority, is upon the 'harassment' or 'alarm and distress' caused to those on the receiving end. It must be conduct of 'such a degree of harassment as to call for the intervention of the court' ( Horner v Horner and C v B ). Although in C v C the phrase 'was calculated to cause alarm and distress' was used, none of the authorities require that a positive intent to molest must be established.”22.In