The Law
17.The power to grant a Non-Molestation Order is set out in s.42 FLA, which states:42 Non-molestation orders.(1)In this Part a “non-molestation order” means an order containing either or both of the following provisions—(a)provision prohibiting a person (“the respondent”) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent;(b)provision prohibiting the respondent from molesting a relevant child.(2)The court may make a non-molestation order—(a)if an application for the order has been made (whether in other family proceedings or without any other family proceedings being instituted) by a person who is associated with the respondent; or(b)if in any family proceedings to which the respondent is a party the court considers that the order should be made for the benefit of any other party to the proceedings or any relevant child even though no such application has been made.…(5)In deciding whether to exercise its powers under this section and, if so, in what manner, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being—(a)of the applicant F97. . . ; and(b)of any relevant child.(6)A non-molestation order may be expressed so as to refer to molestation in general, to particular acts of molestation, or to both.(7)A non-molestation order may be made for a specified period or until further order.(8)A non-molestation order which is made in other family proceedings ceases to have effect if those proceedings are withdrawn or dismissed.18.The power to grant such an order on a without notice application is set out in s.45 of the FLA, which states:45 Ex parte orders.(1)The court may, in any case where it considers that it is just and convenient to do so, make an occupation order or a non-molestation order even though the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as would otherwise be required by rules of court.(2)In determining whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1), the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including—(a)any risk of significant harm to the applicant or a relevant child, attributable to conduct of the respondent, if the order is not made immediately;(b)whether it is likely that the applicant will be deterred or prevented from pursuing the application if an order is not made immediately; and(c)whether there is reason to believe that the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service and that the applicant or a relevant child will be seriously prejudiced by the delay involved in effecting substituted service.(3)If the court makes an order by virtue of subsection (1) it must afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations relating to the order as soon as just and convenient at a full hearing.….19.There have been very few reported cases on the correct approach to granting a Non-Molestation Order in recent years. There is no statutory definition of “molestation”. In