2. THE ORDERS MADE IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT ON 20 JUNE 2016 ARE AFFIRMED.
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – APPEAL AND REVIEW – whether fresh evidence ought be allowed on appeal – whether magistrate ought to have rejected the respondent (and her partner) as untruthful and whether decision was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence about relevant relationship, domestic violence committed – determination of the aggrieved person - whether order “necessary or desirable” to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence – associated violence and orders extending to named persons – whether the magistrate erred and wrongly exercised her discretion in making the order
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading ADH v AHL
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103
Case
[2017] QDC 103
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by a woman, ADH, against a decision made by a magistrate in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The decision concerned an application under the Family Violence Act 2016 (Vic) made by ADH against her former partner, AHL, and his current partner. The magistrate made an order prohibiting AHL and his current partner from committing violence towards ADH and her children. The appeal was focused on the magistrate's handling of the evidence, including whether the magistrate should have found AHL and his current partner to be untruthful and whether the decision was unreasonable.
The court was required to determine whether fresh evidence should have been allowed in the appeal, whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the respondent and her partner as untruthful, and whether the decision was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the magistrate erred in making the order and whether the order was “necessary or desirable” to protect ADH from domestic violence. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the orders should have extended to AHL's current partner, who was not named in the application.
The court found that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. The court held that the magistrate did not err in rejecting the respondent and her partner as untruthful and that the decision was supported by the evidence. The court also found that the magistrate did not err in making the order and that the order was “necessary or desirable” to protect ADH from domestic violence. The court held that the magistrate did not wrongly exercise her discretion in making the order and that the orders did not extend to AHL's current partner, who was not named in the application. The court affirmed the orders made by the magistrate.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. APPEAL DISMISSED.
2. THE ORDERS MADE IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT ON 20 JUNE 2016 ARE AFFIRMED.