Pidduck v Molloy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STOCKER,LORD JUSTICE FARQUHARSON |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1992 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1992] EWCA Civ J0302-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 92/0155 |
| Date | 09 March 1992 |
[1992] EWCA Civ J0302-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BARROW-IN-FURNESS COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MAHON)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Stocker
Lord Justice Farquharson
92/0155
MR. W. P. SMITH (instructed by Messrs. Brown, Barron & Co., Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria) appeared for the Appellant.
MR. T. W. SASSE (instructed by Messrs. Forresters, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria) appeared for the Respondent.
This is an appeal from an injunctive order made by His Honour Judge Mahon, sitting in the Barrow-in-Furness County Court, on 7th January 1992. His order prohibited the defendant from:
"1. Assaulting or threatening the Plaintiff
2. Speaking to the Plaintiff
3. Visiting or entering the curtilage of the Plaintiff's home."
In substance, the appeal is concerned with whether that injunction is too wide or requires to be re-drafted. With the assistance of counsel, we have achieved a re-drafting to which neither feels able to take exception and, in order to explain that re-drafting, I should set out the background.
No-one denies that there was ample practical justification for the making of an order in the widest terms which the law permits.
The history of the matter was this. In February 1984 the parties met. In March 1984 they began living together in rented accommodation, the accommodation being in the name of Miss Pidduck. In May 1986 their daughter Rachel was born. Throughout, the relationship was characterised by a series of assaults by the defendant on the plaintiff, usually when he had been drinking. It led on several occasions to the plaintiff having to move out of her own house, but the relationship was resumed shortly thereafter when the defendant promised not to do it again. However, by January 1989 relations between the two people were such that co-habitation, in the literal sense of living in the same house, ceased. On 3rd May 1989 the defendant came before the court on an application for an injunction and gave an undertaking in these terms:
"Not to beat or assault the Petitioner.
Trespass on the home and property of the Petitioner…
Disturb the Petitioner's peaceful occupation of the said property.
Wrongfully interfere with the Plaintiff's possession."
That appears to have produced a degree of peace, or at least a ceasefire, for a period. But on 26th February 1990, the plaintiff came back to court, alleging that on Sunday, 18th February, the defendant had assaulted her by threatening to return and "get her sooner or later" and that on the same day he had threatened to interfere with the plaintiff's car by "torching it".
As a result of that, although no finding of contempt of court was made, an injunction was imposed requiring the defendant not to assault, threaten or molest the plaintiff by himself, his servants or agents; not to approach within 250 yards of the plaintiff's home, the address of which was stated, or any other house to which she may move; not to damage or thereafter do damage to the plaintiff's car or other personal possessions; and not to approach the plaintiff in the street.
On 7th January 1992 the defendant was again in court on allegations by the plaintiff. The first allegation was that he had approached her in the street, the name of which was unknown to the plaintiff, on 17th October 1991; that he had approached the plaintiff in a street, namely School Street, Barrow-in-Furness, on 11th December 1991; and that he had threatened, molested and assaulted the plaintiff on 11th December 1991 by tapping her on the shoulder, grabbing her and then threatening her by saying, "I am going to bomb your house because I know where you live".
The learned judge, Judge Mahon, in giving judgment, said this:
"The terms of the injunction are wider than in my opinion the law permits upon an action in tort.
As pointed out to Defendant Counsel, the law is not restricted to restraining mere acts of assault or threats of assault or direct trespass and the court is entitled to make any order which prevents or forbids the Defendant from committing a tortious act to the personal detriment of the Plaintiff, in particular her own personal protection or piece of mind."
"These injunctions are common in pestering cases although I do accept that the wording of the original order goes too far.
Three incidents are alleged. Firstly the incident of 17th October 1991. I accept that paragraph 4 of the original order is too wide." [That was the order not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khorasandjian v Bush
...injunction on the facts of this case. Burnett v George[1993] 1 FCR 1012; Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 QB 316; and Pidduck v Molloy[1992] 1 FCR 418 Dictum of Waterhouse, J in Patel v Patel[1993] 1 FCR 1016 at p 1020F not followed. (2) The word "molest" was well known to, and well understood by......
-
Griffin v Griffin
...the extent that this court would have set a fixed limit to the term for which the suspended sentence would be hanging over his head. In Pidduck v Molloy [1992] 2 FLR 202, the trial judge had made an order in essentially the same terms as the present, suspended for 'so long a period as the d......
-
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust and Another
...with the plaintiff by doing acts calculated to cause her harm.’ 22The Court of Appeal may have gone a little further in Pidduck v Molloy [1992] 2 FLR 202, CA. This was another case between former cohabitants, where an injunction against speaking to the plaintiff was replaced by one against ......
-
McCann v Wright
...[1982] 2 All ER 495. Jones v Jones[1993] 2 FCR 82. McLean v Nugent (1980) 1 FLR 26. O'Neill v Williams [1984] FLR 1. Piddock v Mulloy[1992] 1 FCR 418. Practice Direction (Injunction: Domestic Violence) [1978] 1 WLR 1123; [1978] 2 All ER Practice Note (Domestic Violence: Power of Arrest) [19......
-
AFTER MALCOLMSON V MEHTA: CHARTING NEW WATERS IN THE LAW OF HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE — CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PERSPECTIVES
...3, at p 471, para 52. 22 This is further discussed below in paras 69—80. 23 Supra, note 3, at p 473, para 55. 24 [1992] 1 FLR 525. 25 [1992] 2 FLR 202. 26 Supra, note 5, at para 22. 27 Ibid, at para 23. 28 Supra, note 15, at pp 1380H—1381A. 29 Supra, note 5, at para 29. 30 Supra, note 13. 3......