Within the last few days, the Supreme Court has ruled that within relationships, the word ‘violence’ can be interpreted to mean not just physical violence, but incidences of shouting and verbal attacks.
The case concerned involved a wife who left the family home, which was a council property. The wife declared to the local council that she had left the property because she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband and therefore needed to be re-housed. It transpired that her husband had never hit her, or threatened to hit her. The local council therefore refused to re-house her.
The Supreme Court took the decision that in determining the meaning of the word ‘violence’, it should be extended to mean verbal behaviour too.
This decision may have an effect on the application for injunctions under the Family Law Act 1996. Such injunctions are usually sought where a person has been subjected to domestic violence by their spouse or partner and requires a court order that the other person does not come near them and/or leaves the property in which they are living. In some cases, it has been possible to obtain a non-molestation order for psychological abuse provided that evidence is produced to the court, but this may now open up more cases of non-physical abuse being used as a reason for an injunction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350761/Women-entitled-council-house-partner-shouts.html
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Family Department
No comments:
Post a Comment