BJR v BF - [2025] QDC 131

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

LOURY KC DCJ

DC No 4 of 2024

BJR Appellant

BF Respondent

GYMPIE

18 SEPTEMBER 2025

JUDGMENT

LOURY KC DCJ:
1.   On 21 August 2024 cross-applications for Domestic Violence Orders were heard in respect of both the appellant and respondent in the Gympie Magistrates Court. The application by the respondent was withdrawn as no act of domestic violence was alleged. The respondent was advised to seek legal advice as he may be entitled to lodge a new application.
2.   On the same date a temporary protection order was made naming the appellant as the aggrieved. The three children of the appellant and respondent were named in the order.
3.   On 29 August 2024 a second application for a protection order was filed by the respondent in the Toowoomba Magistrates Court.
4.   On 18 September 2024 a final protection order was made in the Gympie Magistrates Court for the protection of the appellant naming the three children. That order was made by consent on a without admissions, basis. The respondent was present in court when the order was made.
5.   On 25 September 2024 the application filed by the respondent in the Toowoomba Magistrates Court was withdrawn. The respondent was present in court.
6.   On 30 September 2024 a third application for a protection order was filed by the respondent in the Atherton Magistrates Court.
7.   On 9 October 2024 a temporary protection order was made for the protection of the respondent with the children named in the order. On 9 October 2024 the application was adjourned for mention on 12 November 2024. The court file endorsed by the learned Magistrate indicates that the matter was adjourned for mention and not hearing or trial.
8.   On 9 October 2024 a paralegal from the appellant’s solicitor’s firm wrote to the learned Magistrate indicating that an application for a grant of legal aid had been made on her behalf and a request was made to appear by telephone. It seems no appearance was made.
9.   A notice of adjournment was served on the appellant. That notice indicated that the hearing of the application had been adjourned for “application” on 12 November 2024. The notice was not consistent with the order made by the learned Magistrate that the matter be listed for mention. It is unknown to me what “application” was intended to convey in the notice of adjournment.
10. On 9 October 2024 the appellant’s grant of legal aid was approved.
11. On 12 November 2024 the learned Magistrate proceeded to hear the application in the absence of the appellant. No appearance was made by the appellant’s solicitors. The learned Magistrate was told by the respondent that the appellant had applied for legal aid but the outcome of that application was unknown.
12. On 30 July 2025 the respondent sent an email to the appellant’s solicitors and to the District Court registry in which he indicated that he wanted the protection order made in the Atherton Magistrates…

Grounds of appeal

[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 BJR v BF

Details

AGLC: BJR v BF [2025] QDC 131
Case: [2025] QDC 131
Decision Date: 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of BJR v BF involved an appeal by BJR against a final protection order made by the Atherton Magistrates Court in favour of BF. The dispute centred on whether the order was procedurally fair, particularly considering that BJR was absent due to a default in appearance and the order was made without her presence or substantive consideration of the merits. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland.

The legal issues in the case primarily revolved around whether the Magistrates Court had the authority to make a final protection order in the absence of BJR and whether the court complied with statutory and rule requirements in doing so. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Magistrates Court's failure to consider relevant court records and provide reasons for the order amounted to a legal error and procedural unfairness.

The District Court found that the Atherton Magistrates Court had erred in making the final protection order in BJR's absence without any substantive consideration of the merits and reasons. The court noted that the Magistrates Court should have taken into account the existing protection order made in Gympie on 18 September 2024, as required by section 41F(5) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. Additionally, the court held that the notice of adjournment was inconsistent with the order for a mention only, thereby denying BJR procedural fairness. The court cited SNW v TRD [2023] QDC 149, which held that a default in appearance does not empower the court to make a protection order without proper consideration and reasons. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the protection order made in Atherton was set aside.

The final orders made by the court were that the appeal is allowed, the protection order made in the Atherton Magistrates Court on 12 November 2024 is set aside, the application for the protection order is remitted to the Atherton Magistrates Court for rehearing before a different Magistrate, and the temporary protection order made on 9 October 2024 is reinstated in identical terms to the order made on that date. There was no order for costs.

Orders