Is it acceptable to use a ‘zonal exclusion’ in a non-molestation order to prohibit a respondent’s access to the family home, instead of making an occupation order?
Well… that depends!
The court can include an exclusion zone in a non-molestation order, prohibiting a respondent from entering a specific area or property (Re Al M (Non-molestation Application) [2022] 2 FLR 179, [per McFarlane P at 43 – 44].
However, the court cannot use a ‘zonal exclusion’ in a non-molestation order to restrict a respondent’s right to occupy property, even on a temporary basis, if the respondent has existing rights of occupation (by virtue of an estate or interest in the property or 'home rights' as defined by FLA 1996, s 30) [Re Al M at 36].
If the respondent has existing rights to occupy, those rights can only be regulated or restricted by way of an occupation order, under the provisions contained in ss 30–38 of FLA 1996.
Bonus points:
Re AI M is an interesting case involving the rich and powerful! The applicant (Her Royal Highness Princess Haya Bint Al Hussain – daughter of the late King Hussein of Jordan) was granted a non-molestation order against her husband (His Highness Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Makhtoum – Ruler of Dubai and the Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)).
The non-molestation order included the following novel provisions which prohibited both the respondent, and those acting on his behalf, from:
- entering, at ground level, a restricted zone surrounding the Princess’ home;
- entering the airspace above ground level at 1,000 feet or below in a 700-metre radius around the Princess’ home;
- proceeding with the acquisition of any interest whatsoever in a property adjacent to and overlooking the Princess’ home;
- acquiring any interest in or renting any property or land whose boundary fell within a more widely drawn restricted zone.
The restriction on entering the airspace above the Princess’ home may be of increasing relevance in the Family Court today, with the increased availability of cheap surveillance drones as a means by which to ‘molest’ one another (although in Re AI M this provision was mainly included to prevent the Sheik’s ‘associates’ (aka ‘henchmen’) from using a helicopter to sweep in and abduct the parties’ children… having previously used similar tactics to abduct two of his other non-subject children!).
The restriction on acquiring an interest in any property ‘adjacent to and overlooking’ the Princess’ home was also a novel intervention. It had been discovered that a family trust (to which the Sheik was a beneficiary) was in the process of acquiring a substantial estate immediately abutting and overlooking the Princess’ home, from which the Sheik and/or his ‘associates’ could surveil the Princess and potential launch further abduction attempts…
