Majak v Rose (No 3)

The applicants, Majak and Rose, sought various forms of judicial review and declaratory relief against orders made by the Local Court and the District Court concerning an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO). The proceedings before the Court of Appeal involved challenges to the correction of the court record of an ADVO, an asserted decision by the Local Court to commence proceedings for an ADVO, an appeal against an order extending an ADVO, and an appeal against a costs order made following a contested application for the extension of an ADVO.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether jurisdictional error had occurred in relation to the correction of the ADVO record, the alleged decision to commence ADVO proceedings, the hearing of the appeal against the extension of the ADVO, and the appeal against the costs order. Specifically, the court considered whether the appeal hearing was conducted as a rehearing, whether there was a denial of procedural fairness, whether the Local Court had made the asserted decision to commence proceedings, and whether the District Court had failed to consider grounds for awarding costs on an indemnity basis or address submissions made by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found no jurisdictional error in any of the matters brought before it. It determined that no error was established in relation to the application for correction of the ADVO record, as no application for variation of the order as originally made had been made. Similarly, the court found no basis for relief regarding the asserted decision to commence ADVO proceedings, as no such decision had been made. The appeal against the order extending the ADVO was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the conduct of the appeal hearing or any denial of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the appeal against the costs order was also dismissed, as the court found no error in the District Court's handling of the grounds for awarding costs or its consideration of the appellant's submissions.

Consequently, the amended summons was dismissed with costs.