RJL v MCP

Case [2025] QDC 117

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RJL v MCP [2025] QDC 117

PARTIES:

RJL

(Appellant)

v

MCP

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D1 of 2025

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 164 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered ex tempore on 1 August 2025
Reasons delivered on 22 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

21 and 23 July 2025 and on the papers

JUDGE:

Kefford DCJ

ORDER:

1.     The appeal is dismissed.

2.     Each party is to bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW – APPEAL – PROTECTION ORDER – where the learned Magistrate refused to make a protection order in favour of the appellant – whether the learned Magistrate erred in finding that there was no relationship – whether there should be an order as to costs in the exercise of the discretion

LEGISLATION:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, 37, 142, 145, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 765, 783, 785

CASES:

ACP v McAuliffe [2017] QDC 294, approved

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172, applied

Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 62; (1976) 135 CLR 616, applied

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Limited v Australian Industrial Relations Commission & Ors [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194, applied

DU v Jackson (DCJ) [2024] QCA 122, considered

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118, applied

GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248, approved

HBY v WBI & Anor [2020] QDC 81, approved

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied

Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513, applied

OMD v Queensland Police Service & Anor [2021] QDC 282, approved

SOLICITORS:

Appellant self-represented
Respondent self-represented

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary

What occurred in the proceedings below?

What evidence did the parties rely on at the hearing before the learned Magistrate?

What case was advanced by the respective parties?

What was the reasons of the learned Magistrate?

What is the relevant legislative context governing a decision to grant a protection order?

What is the nature of the appeal?

What are the grounds of appeal?

What preliminary issues are raised by MCP?

What occurred in the lead up to the determination of the appeal?

Is RJL’s failure to serve the Police Commissioner fatal?

Has RJL sufficiently particularised the grounds of appeal?

Are there procedural deficits with the appeal that are determinative?

Is there a material error in the finding that there is no relevant relationship?

Did the learned Magistrate fail to consider whether the relationship was an “intimate personal relationship”, not limited to a de facto relationship?

Did the learned Magistrate err in finding that RJL lived in a granny flat?

Did the learned Magistrate err…

Continue reading RJL v MCP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
RJL v MCP [2025] QDC 117
Case
[2025] QDC 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of RJL v MCP, the appellant, RJL, sought a protection order against the respondent, MCP, under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. The case came before the Queensland Court of Appeal after the learned Magistrate had declined to make a protection order in favour of RJL. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had erred in determining that there was no relationship between RJL and MCP, which is a necessary condition for the issuance of a protection order. Additionally, the court had to decide whether any order as to costs should be made in the exercise of the discretion.

The Court of Appeal carefully reviewed the evidence presented by both parties. RJL provided various pieces of evidence, including video files, images, text messages, and affidavits, to support her claim of domestic and family violence. MCP, on the other hand, presented affidavits and oral testimony from several witnesses, including RS, AH, NM, and EN, to counter RJL's claims. The Magistrate had considered this evidence but concluded that there was no relationship between RJL and MCP. RJL appealed this decision, arguing that the Magistrate had erred in his findings.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate's determination of no relationship was not erroneous. The court held that the evidence did not establish a relationship between RJL and MCP as required by the Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Regarding the costs, the court noted that the appeal followed the event unless there were exceptional circumstances to order otherwise. Given the nature of the appeal and the arguments presented, the court decided that there were no special or exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs. This decision ensures that the appeal process is fair and that the parties are responsible for their own legal expenses unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Each party is to bear their own costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The application came on for hearing before the learned Magistrate on 24 January 2025. At that hearing, RJL was self-represented and MCP was represented by a solicitor.What evidence did the parties rely on at the hearing before the learned Magistrate? The evidence adduced by RJL that was before the learned Magistrate included:(a)Notice of Filing of Media Exhibit filed by RJL and the associated media exhibit that contains:(i)video files in a folder titled “Additional videos film when feeling scared or forced”, and which files are named IMG-0237, IMG-0383 and IMG-0388;(ii)other video files, including those named IMG-0097-1 and IMG-0888-1;(iii)images in a folder titled “Dvo breeches”, which include images that are named IMG-2981, IMG-2982, IMG-2986, IMG-2987, IMG-2988, IMG-2989, IMG-2992, IMG-2994, IMG-3003(1), IMG-3003, Screenshot 3! Passport, Screenshot3 comfrimation (sic) withholding passport; signal-2024-10-14-011825;(iv)various other images of text messages, facebook messages and pdf copies of emails; (v)copies of correspondence from MCP, on the letterhead of the law firm at which MCP is a solicitor, dated 1 July 2024 and 18 July 2024;(b)an affidavit of RJL sworn 23 November 2024 with attached media exhibits including:(i)various facebook images;(ii)an unreported decision of Magistrate Sinclair delivered 22 November 2024 in relation to M7718/24 dismissing an application for summary judgment and/or striking out of a defence;(c)a statement of RJL taken by police on 27 November 2024;(d)a statutory declaration of RJL taken on 13 December 2024 attaching medical records;(e)an affidavit of RJL sworn 3 July 2024; and(f)an affidavit of RJL sworn 25 August 2024. The learned Magistrate also heard oral evidence from RJL. The evidence adduced by MCP that was before the learned Magistrate included:(a)an affidavit of MCP sworn 7 November 2024 and media exhibits CM-1 to CM-25 that are referenced in the affidavit;(b)an affidavit of a person who I will refer to as NM sworn 30 September 2024 and witnessed by MCP as solicitor and media exhibit NMM-1 that are referenced in the affidavit;(c)an affidavit of a person who I will refer to as EN as sworn 31 October 2024 and witnessed by MCP as solicitor;(d)an affidavit of a person who I will refer to as RS sworn 1 October 2024 and witnessed by MCP as solicitor; and(e)an affidavit of AH sworn 30 October 2024 and witnessed by MCP as solicitor. The learned Magistrate also heard oral evidence from MCP, RS, AH, NM and EN. In their evidence in chief, each of RS, AH, NM and EN gave evidence under oath that everything in their respective affidavits was true and correct. In addition to the affidavits referred to above, prior to the hearing MCP had also filed:(a)an affidavit of a person who I will refer to as DM sworn 30 September 2024 and witnessed by MCP as solicitor; and (b)an affidavit of a person who I will refer to as JS sworn 30 September 2024 and witnessed by MCP as solicitor. At the hearing, MCP indicated that he was not relying on the evidence in the affidavits of DM and JS. RJL confirmed that neither witness was required for cross-examination.What case was advanced by the respective parties?

Decision

Reasons for decision

MCP seeks an order for costs on an indemnity basis in his favour. What is the relevant legal framework governing a decision to order costs? Costs are a creature of statute. They can only be awarded in the circumstances stipulated by the legislature: Knight & Anor v FP Special Assets Limited & Ors [1992] HCA 28; (1992) 174 CLR 178, 182-3; Amos v Monsour Legal Costs Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 235; [2008] 1 Qd R 304, 314 [34]. Section 169(1) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 sets out the powers of this Court as the appeal court deciding the appeal. It does not expressly include the power to award costs. That said, in my view there is a power to award costs: s 142(2) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 and rr 782, 785, 771 and chapter 17A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The power to award costs is governed by chapter 17A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. Within that chapter:(a)r 680 provides that a party to a proceeding cannot recover any costs of the proceeding from another party other than under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 or an order of the court; (b)r 681 relevantly provides that costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise; and(c)r 687 empowers the court to fix an amount for costs. In the present case, the starting point is that the costs of the appeal follow the event unless ordered otherwise. The issue for my determination is whether I should order otherwise.Should I exercise my discretion to make an order other than that the costs follow the event? The discretion to order costs must be exercised judicially and consistently with the purpose of the power. Costs will generally follow the event unless there are special or exceptional circumstances that warrant depriving a successful party of its costs: Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Endresz; Racing Queensland Board v Endresz [No 2] [2024] QCA 123, [4], citing Orr v Director of Proceedings on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman [No 2] [2024] QCA 106 at [2]; Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25; Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39; and Villan v The Body Corporate for The Winston (Cairns) Community Titles Scheme 37263 [No 2] [2024] QCA 54. On the issue of costs, MCP’s Outline of Argument states:“16. The Respondent submits that His Honour Magistrate Guttridge is a very experienced Judicial Officer and well regarded by His peers, practitioners and the general public. The learned Magistrate was prepared to determine the matter on the papers; however, the Appellant chose to proceed to Hearing.17. The Respondent submits that the learned Magistrate was extremely generous in the assistance provided to the Appellant throughout the duration of the Hearing of 24 January 2025 and particularly in not making adverse finding against the Appellant regarding her reliability as a witness and the credibility of the evidence she presented which may have resulted in a successful costs application against her pursuant to section 157(2) of the Act.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.