(1) The second further amended summons filed 21 July 2025 be dismissed.
(2) The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.
Catchwords:
JUDICIAL REVIEW — District Court dismissed appeal of applications for interim apprehended personal violence orders — whether District Court fell into jurisdictional error in making costs orders — whether there was a mistake in the statutory source of power — Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) ss 99 and 99A — Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 28(3)
[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 Licha v Joseph
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Licha v Joseph [2025] NSWCA 192
Case
[2025] NSWCA 192
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the District Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed their appeals against applications for interim apprehended personal violence orders. The applicants contended that the District Court had erred in making costs orders against them, alleging a mistake in the statutory source of power relied upon by the court.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had fallen into jurisdictional error by making the costs orders, and whether the court had misidentified the relevant statutory provisions, specifically ss 99 and 99A of the *Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007* (NSW) and s 28(3) of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW).
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had not erred in its exercise of power to make costs orders. It determined that the relevant statutory provisions, particularly s 28(3) of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW), conferred the necessary authority on the District Court to make such orders in the context of appeals from decisions concerning apprehended personal violence orders. The court concluded that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' second further amended summons and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The second further amended summons filed 21 July 2025 be dismissed.
(2) The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.