JEK v REM - [2025] QMC 10

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JEK v REM [2025] QMC 10

PARTIES:

JEK

v

REM

FILE NO/S:

33297/23(8)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application to Vary Domestic Violence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Murgon

DELIVERED ON:

3 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Murgon

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2025

MAGISTRATE:

Sinclair

ORDER:

APPLICATION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:

Domestic Violence Order – Variation to reduce/revoke

LEGISLATION:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012

Sections 51, 91, 92

CAO v HAT [2013] QDC 42

W v N Appeal No 93 of 1995 per Wylie DCJ

QPS v CAE [2024] QMC 17

SOLICITORS:

L. Marinovic for the applicant Aggrieved.

The Respondent did not appear

Sgt. P. Gangemi for the original QPS applicant

JEK applies to vary order protecting her and her children from REM by ending it immediately. These are the reasons for dismissing that application.

REM has 5-page criminal history covering his whole adult life. Offences of public nuisance, assault police and liquor offences are prevalent. 2017 saw the first of his 5 previous court appearances for domestic violence offences.

A Domestic Violence Order was made on 22 Feb 2023 against the Respondent which protected the Aggrieved. The first condition was the mandatory condition protecting her, the second her children. The third prevented the Respondent from contacting her (with a number of exceptions) and the last fourth from him going within 50m of her (also with exceptions). Neither party attended the original hearing of the matter, filed any material, or had a lawyer there to represent them.

In 2023 the Respondent received a suspended sentence which he breached with offending against this Aggrieved. He was imprisoned to be released on 1 March 2024.

On 10 July 2024 JEK file the present application to effectively end the entire order and cease all protection for her and her children, one of whom is the respondent’s. Many of the applications to vary I deal with are from Aggrieved seeking to reduce or remove orders for their own protection or that of their children.

The Variation Application

Any party can apply to vary any DV order including a TPO as often as they wish.

The application must: [1]
[1] Section 86(2) DFVPA

(a) be in the approved form; and
(b) state the grounds on which it is made; and
(c) state the nature of the variation sought; and
(d) if the applicant is not a police officer—be verified by the applicant by a statutory declaration (a variation declaration); and
(e) be filed in the court.

The approved form appears to permit three type of sub-applications to be made. In Item 5, the first is to vary the conditions of the order. It asks for ‘details of the condition/s that you would like added or varied’. This Application simply states ‘All conditions’.

In the following box marked ‘Give Reasons’ the Aggrieved wrote ‘Help with the children with everything. Etc- indoors, outdoors & travelling’.

Item 5B allows for a request to vary the duration of the order. This was ticked…

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 JEK v REM

Details

AGLC: JEK v REM [2025] QMC 10
Case: [2025] QMC 10
Decision Date: 3 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application was filed by JEK, seeking a variation to a domestic violence order made in favour of REM. The parties had a history of domestic violence, and JEK argued that the current order was overly restrictive and no longer necessary. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the domestic violence order should be varied to reduce or revoke its provisions, given the changes in circumstances since its issuance. The court also considered whether the order was still necessary to protect REM from JEK.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the nature and history of the domestic violence, as well as any changes in circumstances since the original order was made. The court noted that the evidence indicated a pattern of abusive behaviour by JEK towards REM, and that the order was necessary to protect REM from further harm. The court found that there was no sufficient evidence to suggest that the circumstances had changed to the extent that the order was no longer necessary. The court was also mindful of the need to protect REM from potential harm, and concluded that the order should remain in place.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The court found that the evidence did not support a variation or revocation of the domestic violence order, and that it remained necessary to protect REM from further harm by JEK. The final orders were that the application be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

APPLICATION DISMISSED

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.

CITATION:	JEK v REM [2025] QMC 10
PARTIES:	JEK v REM
FILE NO/S:	33297/23(8)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application to Vary Domestic Violence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Murgon
DELIVERED ON:	3 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Murgon
HEARING DATE:	5 March 2025
MAGISTRATE:	Sinclair
ORDER:	APPLICATION DISMISSED
CATCHWORDS:	Domestic Violence Order – Variation to reduce/revoke
LEGISLATION:	Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 Sections 51, 91, 92 CAO v HAT [2013] QDC 42 W v N Appeal No 93 of 1995 per Wylie DCJ QPS v CAE [2024] QMC 17
SOLICITORS:	L. Marinovic for the applicant Aggrieved. The Respondent did not appear Sgt. P. Gangemi for the original QPS applicant