Prentice v Constantinidis

In the matter of *Prentice v Constantinidis*, heard before Judge Manousaridis in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, the dispute concerned an application for an intervention order. The applicant, Ms. Prentice, sought an intervention order against the respondent, Mr. Constantinidis, alleging apprehended violence.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis to demonstrate that the respondent posed an apprehended threat of violence, thereby justifying the making of an intervention order under the *Family Violence Protection Act 2008* (Vic). This required the Court to assess the evidence presented by both parties regarding the alleged conduct and the likelihood of future harm.

Judge Manousaridis considered the evidence of the parties, including their oral testimony and any supporting documentation. The Court applied the legal principles established in relevant case law concerning the threshold for an apprehended violence order, which requires more than a mere possibility of violence but less than a certainty. The Court's assessment focused on the credibility of the witnesses and the objective reasonableness of the applicant's fear of future violence, taking into account the history of the relationship and the specific incidents relied upon.

Ultimately, the Court found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving that an intervention order was necessary to protect her from apprehended violence. Accordingly, the application for an intervention order was dismissed.