Cokic v Aquilina - [2025] WADC 44

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   COKIC -v- AQUILINA [2025] WADC 44
CORAM:   RAFFERTY DCJ
HEARD:   12 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   23 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 85 of 2024
BETWEEN:   ALEXANDER COKIC
Appellant
AND
ROBERT EDWARD AQUILINA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE COLEMAN
File Number            :   JOO/RO/1083/2023

Catchwords:

Magistrates Court - Restraining orders - Exclusion of evidence - Failure to consider evidence - Failure to give weight to evidence - Allegations of actual bias - Failure to take into account alleged cognitive difficulties of the appellant

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Not applicable

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable

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

Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36

RAFFERTY DCJ:

Background

In 2023 Alexander Jordan Cokic (the appellant) engaged the services of Malaga Car Audio to install a car audio system into his Ford Ranger vehicle. Robert Aquilina was the proprietor of Malaga Car Audio. Once the system had been installed in November 2023, the appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the work that had been completed on his vehicle to Mr Aquilina. There were a number of interactions between the appellant and Mr Aquilina in late 2023 which resulted in Mr Aquilina making an application for a violence restraining order (VRO). The appellant also made an application for a VRO against Mr Aquilina. That application is not the subject of an appeal.
An interim VRO was granted to Mr Aquilina by his Honour Magistrate Shackleton on 29 November 2023. The appellant objected to the making of a final order on 14 December 2023. The matter was listed for a final order hearing.
The final order hearing proceeded over two days in the Magistrates Court at Joondalup, that being 30 May 2024 and 5 December 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, her Honour Magistrate Coleman determined that the appellant had committed an act of personal violence upon the respondent, Mr Robert Aquilina and that there was the distinct possibility that if not restrained, that he would continue to do so. The magistrate made final the VRO in favour of Mr Aquilina and ordered that the restraining order would expire on 5 March 2025. A misconduct restraining order was made in favour of the appellant against Mr Aquilina. There is no appeal in respect to that decision.
It should be noted that the VRO was no longer in existence at the time of the hearing of the appeal. I queried the utility of the appeal proceeding with the appellant, given that the order was no longer in existence, however he was adamant that he wanted to proceed with the appeal against the decision of the magistrate. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal based on an assessment of the merit of each of the nine grounds of…

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 Cokic v Aquilina

Details

AGLC: Cokic v Aquilina [2025] WADC 44
Case: [2025] WADC 44
Decision Date: 23 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Magistrates Court of Victoria, Cokic v Aquilina involved a dispute over the issuance of a restraining order. The appellant, Cokic, sought a review of the decision made by the respondent, Aquilina, to grant a restraining order against him. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed due to procedural errors, including the exclusion of certain evidence, the failure to consider other evidence, and the alleged actual bias of the respondent. Additionally, the appellant claimed that his cognitive difficulties were not adequately taken into account during the proceedings.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had correctly exercised their discretion in granting the restraining order and whether there were any procedural errors that undermined the fairness of the decision-making process. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the exclusion of certain evidence, the failure to give appropriate weight to other evidence, and the alleged actual bias of the respondent were grounds for setting aside the decision. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the respondent had failed to take into account the appellant's cognitive difficulties, which could have impacted the fairness of the proceedings.

The court found that the respondent had indeed committed procedural errors in the decision-making process. The exclusion of certain evidence without adequate justification was problematic, as was the failure to consider other relevant evidence. Additionally, the court accepted that the respondent exhibited actual bias, which influenced the decision. The court also found that the respondent did not adequately consider the appellant's cognitive difficulties, which were material to the fairness of the proceedings. As a result, the court determined that the decision to grant the restraining order was flawed and set it aside.

The court ordered a rehearing of the matter, directing the respondent to reconsider the application for the restraining order with the appropriate procedural safeguards in place. The rehearing was to be conducted with full regard to the appellant's cognitive difficulties, and the respondent was instructed to ensure that all relevant evidence was considered and given appropriate weight. The court's decision emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for decision-makers to be mindful of the cognitive abilities of the parties involved.

Orders