GJ v AS

In the case of GJ v AS, the appeal originated from a decision by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which declined to grant a personal protection order sought by GJ against AS. The appeal was conducted as a rehearing, which allowed the introduction of fresh evidence under specific conditions. GJ's primary contention was that the Magistrates Court had erred in its handling of the case, particularly in relation to the admission of evidence and the presence of AS during the proceedings. GJ argued that the court's failure to ensure AS's presence via an audio link contravened the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT). Additionally, GJ claimed that the court's refusal to accept fresh evidence was an abuse of discretion.

The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions governing appeals from Magistrates Court decisions concerning personal protection orders. It determined that an appeal was only permissible against the making, amending, revoking, or refusal to make, amend, or revoke of a protection order, as per the relevant legislation. The court further clarified that a dismissal for lack of prosecution should be treated as a discontinuance before a final decision is made, and consequently, such a dismissal is not an appealable decision. Additionally, any costs order issued in conjunction with a dismissal for lack of prosecution is also not an appealable decision, particularly if it exceeds the court's statutory authority.

Upon reviewing the arguments presented, the court found that GJ's interpretation of Section 20 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) was flawed. The court concluded that the Act does not differentiate between the giving of evidence or submissions and the conduct of a hearing. Moreover, it found no basis to impose a requirement for a represented party to be connected by audio link during the hearing. The court also emphasised that an unrepresented litigant is not entitled to accommodations that may prejudice the other party or to have their claims determined outside the bounds of the law. GJ, being an experienced lawyer, was held to a higher standard in her adherence to legal rulings and her complaints about her unrepresented status.

The court dismissed the disqualification application and ruled the appeal incompetent. It reserved the decision on the costs of the appeal and mandated that the parties file written submissions on costs within 14 days.