Legal Research
Cases
BT (pseudonym initials) v LG (pseudonym initials)

BT (pseudonym initials) v LG (pseudonym initials)

Case [2025] WADC 72 14 October 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   BT (pseudonym initials) -v- LG (pseudonym initials) [2025] WADC 72
CORAM:   JEYAMOHAN DCJ
HEARD:   2 SEPTEMBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   14 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 37 of 2025
BETWEEN:   BT (pseudonym initials)
Appellant
AND
LG (pseudonym initials)
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE KEANE
File Number            :   MC/CIV/PER/RO/844/2025 & MC/CIV/PER/RO/870/2025

Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrates Court - Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) - Final Violence Restraining Order in place - Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the grant of leave to adduce additional evidence - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18
Binningup Nominees Pty Ltd v Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 130
Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571
Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29; (2021) 273 CLR 289
Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 110
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 42
Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Frigger v Frigger [2023] WASCA 103
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Hastings v Cassells [2025] WADC 49
Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Carolyn Martin [2012] WASC 338
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49; (2009) 240 CLR 319
Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Marks v Coles Supermarkets [2021] WASCA 176
Moleirinho v Talbot & Olivier Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 65
MTI v SUL [No 2] [2012] WASCA 87
Murray v Feast [2023] WASC 273
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36
Nugawela v American Express Australia Ltd [2016] WADC 170
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2021] WASCA 25
R v Kelly; Ex parte Hoang van Duong (1981) 28 SASR 271
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342
Reynolds v Rayney [2023] WASCA 144
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 90 ALJR 679; (2016) 331 ALR 550
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92
Sampey v Doherty [2024] WASCA 105
Saunders v The Public Trustee [2015] WASCA 203
Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255
Smart v Albuquerque [2011] WASCA 231
Smart v Power [2019] WASCA 106
Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) [2012] WASC 48
TAH v The Public Advocate [2024] WADC 71
Tobin v Dodd…

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 BT (pseudonym initials) v LG (pseudonym initials)

Details

AGLC: BT (pseudonym initials) v LG (pseudonym initials) [2025] WADC 72
Case: [2025] WADC 72
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by BT against a decision of the Magistrates Court which declined to allow BT to adduce additional evidence in relation to a final violence restraining order made against them. The restraining order was made under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) and the application to adduce additional evidence was made under section 30 of that Act. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional enough to warrant the grant of leave to adduce additional evidence. The court considered the principles and criteria that had been established in previous case law for determining what constitutes exceptional circumstances. The court also considered the reasons provided by the Magistrates Court for declining to allow the additional evidence, and whether those reasons were sufficient or whether there were grounds upon which the Magistrates Court should have granted leave to adduce further evidence.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the Magistrates Court had considered all relevant material and had provided adequate reasons for declining to allow the additional evidence. The court found that the reasons provided were sufficient and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the grant of leave to adduce further evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

There were no further orders made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders