HBY v WBI & Anor

The appellant, HBY, appealed against a domestic violence order made against them in 2018, which was upheld by the District Court. The second respondent, WBI, applied for the domestic violence order to be discharged. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Queensland where the second respondent sought to discharge the domestic violence order, and the appellant sought to have the appeal heard afresh to permit cross-examination on certain documents. The court had to decide whether the discretion exercised by the District Court judge had miscarried and whether the appeal should be heard afresh in part.

The court considered the provisions of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) and the discretion given to the District Court judge under s 168(2) of the Act. The court noted that the judge exercised their discretion in ordering that the appeal be heard afresh in whole, and the court was required to consider whether the discretion had miscarried. The court also considered the second respondent’s application to discharge the domestic violence order. The court held that the discretion had not miscarried and the orders of the District Court judge were set aside. The court further held that the appellant’s application to have the appeal heard afresh to permit cross-examination on certain documents was dismissed, except for documents 7 and 13(a), which were reserved to the Judge hearing the appeal.

The court allowed the second respondent’s application to discharge the domestic violence order and set aside the orders of the District Court judge. The court also dismissed the appellant’s application for the appeal to be heard afresh in part and ordered that the appellant pay the second respondent’s costs on the standard basis. The costs of the application were to be determined by the Judge hearing the appeal. The application for the appeal to be heard afresh to permit cross-examination on documents 7 and 13(a) was reserved to the Judge hearing the appeal.