PE v MU

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.