PE v MU

Case [2010] NSWDC 2

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: P E v M U [2010] NSWDC 2
Hearing dates: 5/1/2010
Decision date: 07 January 2010
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Williams DCJ
Decision:

I uphold the appeal. The APVOs are set aside. The application for cross APVOs is likewise dismissed. As rational communication between the parties seems to have disappeared I would urge them to take advantage of the cheap and accessible means available to them for resolving issues relating to dividing fences, trees, dogs and other things by way of applications to the Local Court or the Land & Environment Court under the pieces of legislation that I have already referred to. I make a non-publication order of the parties names and identifying factors.

Catchwords: Apprehended Personal Violence Orders - appeal against refusal of annulment - nature of such applications - APVOs should not be given lightly or on defective evidence - criteria for making such orders
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act
Dividing Fences Act
Companion Animals Act
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: P E (Applicant)
M U (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2009/12/1768

Judgment

HIS HONOUR:

  1. This matter is an appeal under the provisions of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act. The appellant is Mr E, the respondents are Mrs U, her son R U and her daughter B U.

  2. The E’s and the U’s live next door to each other in a Sydney suburb. One house is owned by Mrs U and she lives there with her adult son and adult daughter. Mr E lives in the other with his partner, Ms H, who is expecting a child at Easter together with their young son.

  3. Since 2007 relationships between the parties has deteriorated to the stage where Apprehended Personal Violence Orders (APVO) have been sought by each against the other. In an endeavour to resolve the matter his Honour in the Local Court referred them to a Community Justice Centre mediation which took place, unsuccessfully, over a three hour period in June last year. His Honour on 1 June 2009 adjourned the APVO hearing until 6 July 2009 to enable the mediation to take place. However, I stress that the 6 July 2009 was not a hearing date but a mention date. His Honour said to the parties on 1 June 2009 that:

“On 6 July you may not have to come back, hopefully you don’t, if you do, then come back on 6 July for mention of all the matters.”

The formal order that was made was that the matter was stood over for mention on that date.

  1. On 6 July 2009, the U’s turned up at Court but not Mr E. His Honour then proceeded to hear the matter in Mr E’s absence taking evidence, very briefly, from Mrs U. In my view, there was not sufficient evidence available after hearing Mrs U for His Honour to make an order, but an order was made.

  2. When Mr E was served…

Continue reading PE v MU

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PE v MU [2010] NSWDC 2
Case
[2010] NSWDC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PE v MU was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the validity of two Apprehended Personal Violence Orders (APVO) made against the appellant, PE, and the respondent, MU. The appellant contested the orders on the basis of defective evidence and sought their annulment. The court was tasked with determining the correct approach to such applications and the criteria for granting APVOs.

The legal issues before the court involved the nature of applications for annulment of APVOs and the criteria that should be applied in granting such orders. The court had to consider whether the evidence supporting the original APVOs was sufficient and whether the orders were made on a proper basis. It was also necessary to determine if the appellant's application for cross APVOs should be granted.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that APVOs should not be granted lightly or on defective evidence. It found that the evidence provided in support of the original orders was insufficient to justify their issuance. The court concluded that the criteria for making APVOs required a higher standard of proof than had been met in this case. Consequently, the court set aside the APVOs and dismissed the appellant's application for cross APVOs. The judge also made a non-publication order to protect the parties' privacy.

Orders

Orders of the court

I uphold the appeal. The APVOs are set aside. The application for cross APVOs is likewise dismissed. As rational communication between the parties seems to have disappeared I would urge them to take advantage of the cheap and accessible means available to them for resolving issues relating to dividing fences, trees, dogs and other things by way of applications to the Local Court or the Land & Environment Court under the pieces of legislation that I have already referred to. I make a non-publication order of the parties names and identifying factors.

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.