President's guidance on drafting and presentation of injunctive orders and the meaning of harassment

In Gloucestershire CC v Newman [2014] EWHC 3136 (Fam), the President of the Family Division stressed the importance of injunctive orders being drafted in clear, precise and unambiguous terms directed and specifically addressed to the person, persons or group or class of persons who are to be bound by the order. Anything less will be unenforceable. The injunction takes must comply with Part 37 and Practice Direction 37A of, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR).

The case also gives guidance about how "harassment" should be construed in injunctive orders when the conduct relates to sending emails. The definition of "harassment" is,

Factors to consider are:

The President reminds practitioners of the need to safeguard the freedom of speech and differentiate between ideas, view, opinions, comments or criticisms, as opposed to intimidation, threats or menaces.

The increasing use of social media has become a difficulty in public law children cases. Injunctions similar to those in this case are being made more regularly. The President alludes to the possible formulation of template orders to ensure direct wording is used and the drawn order is compliant with FPR 37, specifically that the penal notice is set out at the front of the order. Although the court has the power to waive any procedural defects with a committal application under paragraph 13.2 of Practice Direction 37A, it is undesirable to request such waivers.

Case: Gloucestershire CC v Newman [2014] EWHC 3136 (Fam), 3 October 2014 (Bailii).