DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
HFL v PLL [2022] QDC 219
PARTIES:
HFL
(appellant)
v
PLL
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
513/22
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:
5 August 2022 (delivered ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5 August 2022
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
1. Appeal allowed;
2. Decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland dated 4 February 2022 be set aside;
3. That the application to vary a domestic violence order be granted varying the protection order made on 27 February 2019 in terms as those contained in the temporary protection order made on 19 August 2020, save for the inclusion of REX and DSY as named persons protected by the order;
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal fixed at $10,574.63;
5. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal under s 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the learned magistrate varied the protection order to include two named persons – whether the learned magistrate erred
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – COSTS – where the respondent did not appear in order to save costs – where the respondent did not oppose the appeal – whether costs should be ordered in favour of the appellant
LEGISLATION
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) s 15
Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012 (Qld) ss 15, 52
CASES
RIS v DOL & Anor [2021] QDC 154
RIS v DOL & Anor (No.2) [2021] QDC 157
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited [1987] 10 NSWLR 247
National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corp Ltd [1984] 156 CLR 296
COUNSEL:
C Bolovan for the appellant
No appearance
SOLICITORS:
Cudmore Legal for the appellant
Introduction
This is an appeal in respect of the matter of HFL v PLL, which appeal is in part against the decision of the learned magistrate at Brisbane in EMA BGLE (undated) delivered 4 February 2022, which ordered that an application to vary a domestic violence order be granted, varying a protection order made on 27 February 2019, in terms contained in a temporary protection order made on 19 August 2020.
It is, in a practical sense, unnecessary to articulate all the terms of the order made, other than to say that the final outcome of the decision by the learned magistrate was to include two named persons in the final order, in circumstances where both the appellant and the respondent had agreed that that aspect of the matter was not to proceed.
Grounds of Appeal
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“(1) The primary magistrate erred in law in making the order at Brisbane on 4 February 2022 (order). In particular:
(a) The primary magistrate, in the exercise of his Honour’s discretion, varied the order made…
Continue reading HFL v PLL
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- HFL v PLL [2022] QDC 219
- Case
- [2022] QDC 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the learned magistrate had erred in varying the protection order to include the named individuals, REX and DSY. The appellant argued that the magistrate had failed to consider certain relevant factors in making this decision, and that the inclusion of these individuals was inappropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether costs should be awarded to the appellant given that the respondent did not appear to save costs and did not oppose the appeal.
In its decision, the court found that the learned magistrate had indeed erred in varying the protection order to include REX and DSY. The court held that the magistrate had not properly considered all relevant factors and had therefore made an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland was set aside. The court then granted the application to vary the protection order but limited the variation to the terms of the temporary protection order made on 19 August 2020, excluding REX and DSY as named persons protected by the order. Furthermore, the court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, fixed at $10,574.63, and granted the respondent an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal under s 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
In summary, the appeal was successful, and the protection order was varied as per the temporary order, excluding the inclusion of REX and DSY. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and was granted an indemnity certificate.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed;
2. Decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland dated 4 February 2022 be set aside;
3. That the application to vary a domestic violence order be granted varying the protection order made on 27 February 2019 in terms as those contained in the temporary protection order made on 19 August 2020, save for the inclusion of REX and DSY as named persons protected by the order;
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal fixed at $10,574.63;
5. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal under s 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
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.