Levi v Bates [2015] EWCA Civ 206

A woman was harassed by her sister's ex-partner. Although she never lived with him, the court found she was 'associated with' him under the Family Law Act 1996. This expanded the Act's protection to non-cohabiting individuals with a clear familial connection.

Facts

The appellant, Ms Sarah Levi, was the sister of Mandy, the former partner of the respondent, Mr Adrian Bates. Mr Bates and Mandy had lived together and had a child. Ms Levi was a very frequent visitor to their home, often staying overnight and providing childcare for her niece. Following the separation of Mr Bates and Mandy, Mr Bates subjected Ms Levi to a campaign of harassment, including abusive text messages, silent phone calls, and threats. Ms Levi sought a non-molestation order against Mr Bates under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996).

Issues

The central legal issue was whether Ms Levi and Mr Bates were ‘associated persons’ as defined by section 62(3) of the FLA 1996. Without this association, the court had no jurisdiction to grant a non-molestation order under the Act. The first instance judge had concluded they were not ‘associated’ because they had never lived in the same household and their relationship was not sufficiently ‘familial’. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether this interpretation of the statute was correct, or if the definition of ‘associated persons’ could encompass individuals in their situation.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that the parties were ‘associated persons’. The court adopted a purposive interpretation of the FLA 1996, looking to the legislative intent behind the Act.

Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division

Sir Brian Leveson criticised the first instance judge’s narrow interpretation. He emphasised that the FLA 1996 was enacted to provide protection from domestic violence beyond the confines of spousal or cohabiting relationships. He held that the definition of ‘associated persons’ did not require cohabitation as a prerequisite. His reasoning focused on the plain words of the statute and the mischief it was designed to remedy.

“It cannot be the case that a person who is subjected to violence or harassment by a relative by marriage or a person with whom there are children has to demonstrate that they live or have lived in the same household or that the relationship has the full characteristics of ‘family life’. In my judgment, on the facts as he found them, the judge was wrong to conclude that the parties were not associated.”

He concluded that Ms Levi and Mr Bates were sufficiently connected through their respective relationships with Mandy and the child to be considered ‘associated’.

Lord Justice McFarlane

Lord Justice McFarlane provided a detailed analysis of the legislative history, heavily referencing the Law Commission Report (No. 207, ‘Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home’) which preceded the Act. He highlighted that the Law Commission had explicitly intended to broaden the categories of person eligible for protection.

“The purpose of Part IV of the 1996 Act is to provide swift and effective remedies for the victims of ‘domestic violence’. The mischief that the Act seeks to address is not confined to violence between spouses or cohabitants. It extends to ‘violence in a family context’ and ‘domestic violence’ in a wider sense.”

He found that the relationship between the parties, given Ms Levi’s role as a supportive aunt and frequent visitor to the home, clearly had a ‘familial’ dimension. The frequency and nature of the contact were key factors in establishing the association.

“On the facts as found by the judge, the relationship between these two parties plainly had a ‘familial’ dimension to it. The appellant was a regular and frequent visitor to the home which her sister and the respondent shared; she stayed over on many occasions and was a hands-on and supportive aunt to the parties’ child… In those circumstances I am in no doubt that the parties were ‘associated persons’ within the meaning of the 1996 Act.”

Implications

This decision is significant for clarifying and extending the scope of protection under the Family Law Act 1996. It establishes that a ‘familial’ link sufficient to ground an application for a non-molestation order can exist between individuals who have never lived together. The ruling confirms that courts should adopt a broader, purposive approach to the term ‘associated persons’, focusing on the nature of the relationship and the context of the alleged harassment, rather than applying a strict test of cohabitation. It thereby strengthens the remedies available to victims of domestic abuse who are part of a wider family network.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. A declaration was made that the parties were ‘associated persons’ under the Family Law Act 1996, and the case was remitted to the County Court to determine whether a non-molestation order should be granted.

Source: Levi v Bates [2015] EWCA Civ 206