Legal Research
Cases
MNT v Mee

MNT v Mee

Case [2020] QDC 126 20 May 2020

Appeal

Standing

Res Judicata

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Protection Order

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MNT v MEE [2020] QDC 126

PARTIES:

MNT
(Appellant)

v

MEE
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3759/19

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2020

JUDGE:

Byrne QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where the appeal was brought pursuant to section 164(a) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) – where a Protection Order was made under section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) – where the order was to be in force for a period of five years and contained 8 conditions – whether the Magistrate erred in fact and/or law by finding that the appellant had committed an act of domestic violence against the respondent – whether the Magistrate erred in law by failing to properly consider whether it was necessary or desirable to make a domestic violence order – whether the Magistrate erred in law by making an ouster order – whether the Magistrate erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasoning

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, s 4, s 8, s11, s 12, s 13, s 14, s 23, s 37, s 41C, s 56, s 57, s 63, s 64, s65, s 91, s 145, s 151, s 164, s168, s169
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 1999 (Qld)

ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Coal andAllied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612
MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151
R v Hooper; ex parte Cth DPP [2008] QCA 308
R v War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal; Ex parteBott (1933) 50 CLR 228
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679
Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171

COUNSEL:

Mr S. Trewavas for the Appellant
Mr S. Kissick for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lexsolve Lawyers for the Appellant
Hall Payne Lawyers for the Respondent

The appellant appeals against the making of a Protection Order under section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (DFVP Act) by an acting Magistrate in the Ipswich Magistrates Court on 19 September 2019, and the dismissal on the same day of a cross-application for a Protection Order. However no grounds of appeal and no submissions were directed to the dismissal of the cross-application.
The order was ordered to be in force for a period of five years and contained a total of eight conditions, directed towards the appellant’s dealings with the respondent and another named person. Those conditions can be distilled into the following broad summary:
a) The appellant be of good behaviour towards both the…

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 MNT v Mee

Details

AGLC: MNT v Mee [2020] QDC 126
Case: [2020] QDC 126
Decision Date: 20 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MNT, the appellant, appealed against a decision made by a Magistrate in Queensland who issued a Protection Order against MNT, the appellant, under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld). The Protection Order was to be in force for five years and contained eight conditions. The appeal was brought pursuant to section 164(a) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld). The legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrate erred in fact and/or law by finding that the appellant had committed an act of domestic violence against the respondent, whether the Magistrate erred in law by failing to properly consider whether it was necessary or desirable to make a domestic violence order, whether the Magistrate erred in law by making an ouster order, and whether the Magistrate erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasoning.

The court found that there was no error in the Magistrate's decision. The court held that the Magistrate had properly considered the evidence and circumstances of the case and had not erred in fact or law in finding that the appellant had committed an act of domestic violence against the respondent. The court also found that the Magistrate had properly considered whether it was necessary or desirable to make a domestic violence order and had not erred in law in making the order. The court further held that the Magistrate had not erred in law in making an ouster order and had provided adequate reasoning for the decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Protection Order was upheld. The appellant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the order made by the Magistrate was affirmed. The court found that the Magistrate had properly exercised their discretion in making the order and that there was no error in the decision. The court's decision highlights the importance of the court's role in protecting victims of domestic violence and the need for careful consideration of the evidence and circumstances of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal 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.

Actions

Citations

MNT v Mee [2020] QDC 126

Most Recent Citation

MNT v MEE (No 2) [2020] QDC 100

Cases Citing This Decision

JKL v Dba (No. 3) [2022] QDC 163
Citation 1 (Para 3)

…re can only be awarded where there is a legislative basis to do so.[2] [2] Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178 [182]; MNT v MEE (No. 2) [2020] QDC 126 [2].…
Kal v DJL [2022] QDC 152
Citation 2 (Para 14)

…t the Magistrate had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the evaluation of credit and in assessing the “feeling” of the case. [5][2020] QDC 126.…
MNT v MEE (No 2) [2020] QDC 100
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…gh error was found in the original reasons, the respondent was wholly successful in the appeal and is seeking her costs of that appeal. [1] MNT v MEE [2020] QDC 126. The power to order costs…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103
Citation 1 (Para 10)

…alth Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171; R v War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 249-250, 256; ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103, [46].…
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22
Citation 2 (Para 3)

…there is some error in the decision under appeal.[6] [4] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [22]-[25]; Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 at [43], [57]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 at [47]. [5] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [22]; McDonald v Queensland Police S…
MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151
Citation 3 (Para 4)

…e concluded that the making of the order against the appellant was not necessary or desirable. [26][2014] QDC 248, [32]-[33] per McGill SC DCJ. [27][2015] QDC 151, [55] per Morzone QC DCJ…
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…ld be imposed. Accordingly the appropriate order is that stated by the plurality in Kentwell v The Queen ,[50] and the appeal will be dismissed. [50] (2014) 252 CLR 601, [42].…
GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248
Citation 5 (Para 4)

…applied the appropriate legal test, he would have concluded that the making of the order against the appellant was not necessary or desirable. [26][2014] QDC 248, [32]-[33] per McGill SC DCJ. [27][2015] QDC 151, [55] per Morzone QC DCJ…
Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171
Citation 6 (Para 10)

…to show the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.[12] [11] Section 145 of the DFVP Act. [12] Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171; R v War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 249-250, 256; ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103, [46].…
R v. Hooper; ex parte Cth DPP [2008] QCA 308
Citation 7 (Para 4)

…e satisfied to the required standard that domestic violence was perpetrated by the appellant on the respondent. [31] R v Hooper; ex parte Cth DPP [2008] QCA 308, [23].…
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
Citation 8 (Para 3)

…the “feeling” of the case.[5] The onus is held by the appellant to show that there is some error in the decision under appeal.[6] [4] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [22]-[25]; Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 at [43], [57]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 at [47…
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47
Citation 9 (Para 3)

…18 at [22]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service, ibid. [6] Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 at [23]; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194, [14]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service, ibid.…
Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40
Citation 10 (Para 3)

…ce Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 at [47]. [5] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [22]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service, ibid. [6] Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 at [23]; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194, [14]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service, ibid.…
R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott [1933] HCA 33
Citation 11 (Para 10)

…Section 145 of the DFVP Act. [12] Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171; R v War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 249-250, 256; ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103, [46].…
House v R [1936] HCA 40
Citation 12 (Para 4)

…of the Protection Order involves the exercise of a discretion, error of the kind explained in House v The King [7] will need to be demonstrated. [7] (1936) 55 CLR 499 esp. at 505.…
House v The King 63 WN 176
Citation 13

…203 CLR 172 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151 R v Hooper; ex parte Cth DPP [2008] QCA 308 R v Wa…

Legislation Cited

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) 4
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
1 mention

CITATION:	MNT v MEE [2020] QDC 126
PARTIES:	MNT (Appellant) v MEE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3759/19
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 February 2020
JUDGE:	Byrne QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where the appeal was brought pursuant to section 164(a) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) – where a Protection Order was made under section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) – where the order was to be in force for a period of five years and contained 8 conditions – whether the Magistrate erred in fact and/or law by finding that the appellant had committed an act of domestic violence against the respondent – whether the Magistrate erred in law by failing to properly consider whether it was necessary or desirable to make a domestic violence order – whether the Magistrate erred in law by making an ouster order – whether the Magistrate erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasoning Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, s 4, s 8, s11, s 12, s 13, s 14, s 23, s 37, s 41C, s 56, s 57, s 63, s 64, s65, s 91, s 145, s 151, s 164, s168, s169 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 1999 (Qld) ADH v AHL [2017] QDC 103 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Coal andAllied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151 R v Hooper; ex parte Cth DPP [2008] QCA 308 R v War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal; Ex parteBott (1933) 50 CLR 228 Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 Sudath v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 171
COUNSEL:	Mr S. Trewavas for the Appellant Mr S. Kissick for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lexsolve Lawyers for the Appellant Hall Payne Lawyers for the Respondent