Clarify wording of a court order

[mightymalties]

I'm hoping for some clarification regarding the wording of a court order in relation to family proceedings.

The first part explains the things each party has agreed to do/not do. The second is clearer and begins "the court orders that..."

If one of the parties goes against what they had agreed, would this be taken seriously at the next hearing? The party had previously had an undertaking which was due to expire and had made this agreement in lieu of a more formal order.

Posted too soon.

I was wondering whether the parts which were "agreed" are as binding as those which were "ordered", or are they "optional"? I suspect the former, but would appreciate clarification. Thanks to anyone who can advise.

You won't have a record of agreement which would be intended to replace something the court should order. Usually it refers to agreements about pre-existing ownership, or not to issue certain court proceedings. What precisely is the recital that you are concerned about?

I had requested a non-mol, due to ex having breached his undertaking (made 6 months earlier in lieu of a non-mol). This was supported by CAFCASS. However, judge felt it was unnecessary as ex agreed not to contact me at all. This was presented in the court order with the wording "the respondent has agreed not to contact, threaten, harass or intimidate the applicant..."

He has continued to do so, but not to the extent where I felt it was vital to bring back to the court's attention before the next hearing.

Not binding, but a statement of intent is useful like this in the middle of proceedings. If the judge finds he’s continued the harassment nothwithstanding the agreement it will be hard d for him to satisfy the court that he will be able to change his behaviour.