The case of Melanie Brown and Stephen Belafonte
- Details
- Hits: 255
Court orders Mel B to pay legal costs after failed non-molestation application against Stephen Belafonte
Our client, Stephen Belafonte, has filed a defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife, Melanie Brown, widely known as Mel B of the Spice Girls. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Brown falsely accused Belafonte of serious crimes, including physical assault, rape, financial and emotional abuse, sex trafficking, and illegal gun possession. Upon being served with the legal papers, Mel B made an unusual application to the court, which is now central to this case.
Background to Mel B and Stephen Belafonte court case
On 21 June 2024, former Spice Girls member Melanie Brown, better known as “Mel B”, applied for a non-molestation order against our client, her former husband, Stephen Belafonte. The application was made while Mr Belafonte who resides in the United States, was on a brief visit to London, UK. The order was sought using a special emergency procedure, designed to protect mostly women facing an immediate and serious threat to their safety in domestic relationship.
Mr Belafonte was unaware of the proceedings and was not in attendance as he was departing for the US on the same day the application was filed, prior to it being served on him. Mr Belafonte was represented by Cohen Davis Solicitors and by King Counsel, Adam Wolanski.
An non-molestation order can only be granted in circumstances where it can be enforced
Mel B, who currently lives in Leeds , sought the order to protect herself from what she claimed was a current and serious threat to her safety posed by Mr Belafonte. This was despite the fact that the parties hadn’t communicated for some time other than through a US special family court communication platform and despite the fact that Mr Belafonte had no intention to travel outside London during his short visit. The emergency order was granted without notice to Mr Belafonte and was made solely on the basis of a witness statement provided by Mel B to the court.
However, the judge told her that the order, would be automatically discharged if Mr Belafonte was about to leave the UK, was leaving, or had already left. The reason for the judges’ caveat was that a UK non-molestation order will not generally be issued against someone who permanently resides in the US and was only briefly visiting the UK, as the court can only makes orders which can be enforced. Mel B told the judge that Mr Belafonte’s visit to the UK was a surprise, unexpected visit, and that she had already successfully applied for a similar non-molestation order against Mr Belafonte in the US.
Mr Belafonte subsequently disputed this account. The judge also refused Mel B’s application to serve the emergency order on Mr Belafonte by a WhatsApp message and insisted that service must be affected in person.
Inappropriate communication with the judge
It was later revealed that Mel B, through her legal team, had contacted the judge via a private email to request an urgent hearing, in an attempt to speed up the hearing in her case. Her move was later criticised by the court as an inappropriate attempt to bypass standard court procedures.
Charitable support
Despite the ruling on 21 June 2024, Mel B, who was assisted by a law firm acting on a charitable, or a pro bono basis, approached the court again 3 days later, to request permission for alternative service (service by WhatsApp). Her application went before a different judge. This application was granted, allowing the order to be served via WhatsApp.
As is always the case with emergency court orders of this nature, they only last for a few days, just enough to notify the respondent and give him an opportunity to come to court to defend himself. This is called a “return hearing”.
Why did the court revoke the original non-molestation order
The return hearing was held on 27 June 2024, where our firm, acting on behalf of Mr Belafonte, successfully challenged the entire order, had it revoked and obtained an order that Mel B pay our client’s legal costs. At the hearing, Mr Belafonte produced evidence that contradicted the claims made in Mel B’s witness statement.
This included evidence that, contrary to what she had asserted in her sworn witness statement, Mel B had been fully aware of his visit to London. Furthermore, Mr Belafonte presented the court with evidence that showed that Mel B had omitted relevant information from her application, which he argued created a misleading impression regarding their recent communication.
A non-molestation order cannot be granted just to provide the application with “peace of mind”
Nevertheless, Mel B’s legal representatives asked the judge to continue the emergency order on the basis that she needed the order so that “there was peace of mind for the applicant”.
The judge explained the obvious, that the test for a non-molestation order is not to give the applicant peace of mind. The test is whether the court finds conduct, and recent conduct, that is capable of meriting the imposition of a non-molestation order. The judges indicated that she considered that the test had not been met. On this basis, she encouraged Mel B to withdraw her application otherwise she will make a formal ruling based on fact findings. During the hearing, we successfully argued on behalf of Mr Belafonte that the emergency non-molestation order had been wrongly granted. The judge acknowledged the merit of Mr Belafonte’s argument and said as follows:
“…That is now in dispute and also the other matter relied upon in terms of recent conduct was that she had no idea that he was coming to this country or anything of that nature, which I am afraid the emails do suggest. was not the case...”
Faced with serious procedural deficiencies and the compelling evidence presented by Mr Belafonte, Mel B, through her solicitor, chose to withdraw her application, just moments after she asked the court to make the order permanent and before the judge had made findings of fact.
A rare cost order in a non-molestation order case
Despite her urging the judge to not make a cost order against her on the basis that:
“...she feels a proper and correct application was put in..”, the judge ordered Mel B to pay Mr Belafonte’s legal costs, a fairly rare occurrence in the family courts. In addition to his legal costs, all orders against Mr Belafonte were discharged.
