MAB v SLD

[2024] QMC 21

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MAB v SLD [2024] QMC 21

PARTIES:

MAB

(Aggrieved )

v

SLD

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Pine Mag 000000561/24

Mag 00026855/24(1)

DIVISION:

Civil, Domestic Violence

PROCEEDING:

Application for a Protection Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Pine Rivers Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2024, Delivered Ex Tempore.

DELIVERED AT:

Pine Rivers Magistrates Court

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2024

ACTING MAGISTRATE:

John J Costanzo

ORDER:

1.   The respondent is not, and never was, a sister-in-law of the aggrieved, let alone an ex-sister-in-law of the aggrieved.

2.   Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Domestic violence — relevant relationship — whether respondent is ex-sister-in-law of aggrieved  — where aggrieved is in a current de facto relationship with the brother of the respondent’s ex partner, who have a child together — where the brother and respondent broke up before the aggrieved took up with the current partner.

CASES REFERRED TO

LSI v NYO [2023] QDC 170.

SOLICITORS:

Mr E. O’Sullivan for the aggrieved.

Ms G. Sharma (ATSILS) for the respondent.

1. This is the matter of MAB and SLD.  Ms MAB is the aggrieved.  Ms SLD is the respondent in an application under the domestic and family violence protection act 2012.

1. A threshold issue has arisen as to whether or not a relevant relationship exists. The aggrieved argues that she is the ex sister-in-law of the respondent.

1. The aggrieved argues there is a relevant relationship. The respondent argues there is not; so this is a typical threshold issue to be determined before the matter could proceed

1. Under section 37 of the domestic and family violence protection act the first element for the aggrieved to prove under section 37(1)(a) is that a relevant relationship exists between the aggrieved and the respondent.

1. Section 13 provides the definition of the meaning of relevant relationship as follows—  “intimate relationships”, “family relationships” and “informal care relationships.”

1. Section 19 then defines a “family relationship” and “relative”.  Relevantly, the section provides that the relationship exists if one of them is or was a relative of the other.

1. The section goes further and states a relative of a person is someone ordinarily understood to be or to have been connected to the person by blood or marriage. 

1. Here of course there is no connection by blood or marriage and the alleged relationship in this case is not listed in the examples provided in the section so the question is— is there a de facto relationship or a relationship falling within the extended definition of persons who have a wider concept of a family relationship?

1. The respondent is aboriginal .  The aggrieved is not . Therefore, such considerations do not apply here.

10.  I've been referred to the District Court decision in LSI v NYO [2023] QDC 170. This decision I find helpful as to how to apply a liberal interpretation to the definition of family relationship but it did involve the identification of step-siblings and not an ex sister-in-law.

11.  Here the aggrieved is now in a relationship (a de facto relationship) with one LB.   LB has a brother ZB.  ZB and the respondent are former de facto partners.

12.  The aggrieved is therefore in a current de facto relationship with the brother of the respondent’s ex-partner.

13.  There is clearly a familial relationship between the aggrieved on the one part and both LB and ZB on the other, as they are brothers; but does that familial relationship extend to ZB’s former partners or girlfriends? That is the issue?

14.  Mr. O'Sullivan submits that it does so extend, and rests much of his argument on the basis that ZB and the respondent had a child together.   Upon analysis,  I find this is a red herring. The  birth of the child to the aggrieved’s partner’s brother’s ex girlfriend or partner can't force the aggrieved into a family relationship with the respondent.

15.  One should note well that ZB and the respondent broke up before the aggrieved took up with his brother LB.  I think in this case context and timing or chronology are highly relevant.

16.  I find that on any liberal interpretation, the linkages between the aggrieved and the respondent are simply too distant and disconnected to be able to identify or define any sensible familial relationship between the aggrieved and respondent as ordinarily understood or as otherwise envisaged by the Act.  The respondent is not, in my view, and never was, a sister-in-law of the aggrieved, let alone an ex-sister-in-law of the aggrieved.

17.  So, in those circumstances the application must be dismissed.

JJ Costanzo
Acting Magistrate