C v C [Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction] [1998]

1. Facts:

• In C v. C, the case involved a husband seeking an order to prevent his former wife from making public revelations about their relationship through newspapers.

• The husband argued that these public disclosures amounted to molestation and sought legal protection to prevent further revelations.

• The wife’s intent in making these disclosures was to explain her version of events rather than to intentionally humiliate the husband.

2. Outcome:

• The court determined that the husband's claim was more about seeking protection for his reputation rather than genuine concerns of molestation.

• The judge found that the wife’s intention was to provide her perspective on their relationship, not to cause deliberate humiliation or distress to the husband.

• As a result, the court did not grant the order preventing the wife from making further disclosures, focusing on the intent behind the actions rather than the potential impact on the husband’s reputation.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Intent and Molestation: The decision in C v. C emphasises the importance of intent in determining whether conduct constitutes molestation. Unlike Johnson v. Walton, where the intent was clearly to humiliate, in this case, the wife’s intent was to explain her side of the story, not to inflict distress or humiliation.

• Protection of Reputation vs. Genuine Harassment: The ruling highlights the distinction between seeking to protect one's reputation and addressing genuine harassment or molestation. The court focused on whether the former wife’s actions were intended to harm the husband or were simply a means of expressing her own account of the relationship.

• Freedom of Expression: The case reflects the tension between protecting an individual from harassment and upholding freedom of expression. The wife’s right to share her version of events was weighed against the husband’s claim of being subjected to harassment.

• Legal Interpretation of Harassment: This case contributes to the legal interpretation of harassment by demonstrating that actions intended to communicate a personal narrative, without the specific intent to humiliate or distress, may not meet the criteria for molestation under harassment laws.

• Balancing Interests: C v. C underscores the need for courts to balance the interests of both parties—protecting individuals from genuine harm while also considering the rights to free expression and the context in which statements are made.