GSX v NJP

Case [2025] QDC 122

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

GSX v NJP and Anor [2025] QDC 122

PARTIES:

GSX
(Appellant)

v

NJP
(First Respondent)

and

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (ACTING SERGEANT BNC)
(Second Respondent)

and

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (SENIOR CONSTABLE PNF)
(Third Respondent)

FILE NO:

BD 221160/24

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2025

JUDGE:

Grigg DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal is extended to 14 January 2025.

2.   The time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal is extended to 14 January 2025.

3.   The decision of His Honour in so far as it dismissed the applicant/appellant’s application for a protection order, be set aside.

4.   The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law by a different Magistrate.

5.   The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

6.   Each party bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where the appeal was brought pursuant to s 164 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) – where the parties brought cross applications against each other for domestic violence protection orders – where the Magistrate granted the first respondent’s application for a protection order and dismissed the appellant’s application – where the appellant appeals the dismissal of her application on the grounds of errors of law, errors of fact, and apprehended bias – whether leave should be granted to permit the notice of appeal to be filed out of time – whether leave should be granted for the appellant to file and adduce further evidence – whether the Magistrate was in error

LEGISLATION:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012 (Qld)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

CASES:

Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289

CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76
Coghlan v Cumberland (5) (1898) 1 Ch 704
DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78; 177 CLR 472
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Edwards v Noble [1971] HCA 54; 125 CLR 296
Feldman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2020] 103 NSWLR 307
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Kriss [2007] NSWCA 79
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427
NBE v PRT & Anor [2018] QDC 29
Polsen v Harrison [2021] NSWCA 23
QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 279 CLR 148
Re JRL; Ex p CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
SGB v STG; WTS v STG [2024] QDC 128

COUNSEL:

M Henry for the first respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant is…

Continue reading GSX v NJP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GSX v NJP [2025] QDC 122
Case
[2025] QDC 122
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GSX, the appellant, appealed against a decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland, where His Honour dismissed her application for a domestic violence protection order while granting a similar application by NJP, the first respondent. The dispute involved cross applications for domestic violence protection orders between the two parties, and the court was tasked with determining which application should be granted. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed on several grounds, including errors of law, errors of fact, and an allegation of apprehended bias against the Magistrate. She also sought leave to file her notice of appeal out of time and permission to adduce additional evidence.

The court considered whether it should grant leave for the late filing of the notice of appeal and the admissibility of new evidence. It assessed the arguments concerning errors of law, errors of fact, and the alleged bias of the Magistrate. The court examined whether the Magistrate had misapplied the law, made factual errors, or exhibited bias in reaching the decision. The appeal's validity and the need for a rehearing by a different Magistrate were also assessed.

The court granted the appellant leave to file the notice of appeal beyond the stipulated time and permitted the inclusion of additional evidence. It found that the Magistrate had erred in dismissing the appellant's application and that the decision should be set aside. The court concluded that the matter should be remitted to the Magistrates Court for a rehearing by a different Magistrate. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The orders of the court included an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal until 14 January 2025, the setting aside of the Magistrate’s decision dismissing the appellant’s application, the remittal of the matter to the Magistrates Court for rehearing by a different Magistrate, and the dismissal of the appeal in all other respects. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal is extended to 14 January 2025.

2. The time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal is extended to 14 January 2025.

3. The decision of His Honour in so far as it dismissed the applicant/appellant’s application for a protection order, be set aside.

4. The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law by a different Magistrate.

5. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

6. Each party bear their own costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.