Shouting at your partner – A valid reason for an injunction?

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

The Right to Strike

The London Underground can try to obtain an injunction to prevent strike action, but only if the Union has failed to comply with specific legal requirements, making the ballot and any subsequent strike unlawful. (For example the employer is entitled to know which ‘category of worker’ is being balloted. Without this precise information the employer is unable to identify the steps he may need to take to address the employees concerns or to make alternative arrangements to enable the business to function in their absence).

All employees participating in strike action are at risk. Failing to attend work is a fundamental breach of their contract of employment, and they will not be paid for days they do not work. Employees participating in unofficial strike action may be fairly dismissed. As the dismissal arises out of a breach of the employees contract they will not be entitled to notice pay. Any employee who does not work and is involved in ‘unofficial’ union action may be dismissed, even if attending meetings on their day off, or not working through fear of reprisals.

Dismissal is only automatically unfair if the employee is dismissed within 12 weeks of participating in official strike action, or the employee is absent for specific statutory or family reasons, or has been subjected to ‘selective treatment’.

Employment businesses may not provide agency workers to the employer to enable the provision of services to continue

Read more about Hart Brown's employment department