SGB v STG; WTS v STG - [2024] QDC 128

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SGB v STG; WTS v STG [2024] QDC 128

PARTIES:

In D No 8 of 2023:

SGB

(Appellant)

V

STG

(Respondent)

In D No 211 of 2024:

WTS

(Appellant)

V

STG

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

8 of 2023

211 of 2024

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 164 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2024 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

30 July 2024

JUDGE:

Holliday KC DCJ

ORDER:

IN D NO 8 OF 2023

1.   IN RELATION TO SGB, APPEAL ALLOWED;

2.   IN RELATION TO SGB, THE ORDER MADE BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SOUTHPORT ON 20 DECEMBER 2022 BE SET ASIDE;

3.   IN RELATION TO SGB, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE SOUTHPORT MAGISTRATES COURT TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT MAGISTRATE AND LISTED AT THE FIRST CONVENIENT OPPORTUNITY AS NOTIFIED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THAT COURT TO FACILITATE THE FURTHER HEARING OF THE APPLICATION FILED ON 16 JULY 2021;

IN D NO 211 OF 2024

1.   IN RELATION TO WTS, APPEAL ALLOWED.

2.   IN RELATION TO WTS, THE ORDER MADE BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SOUTHPORT ON 20 DECEMBER 2022, BE SET ASIDE;

3.   IN RELATION TO WTS THE APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST WTS ON 29 JULY 2021 IS DISMISSED.

IN D NO 8 OF 2023 AND D NO 211 OF 2024

1.   THE APPELLANTS HAVE 14 DAYS FROM 30 JULY 2024 TO FILE ANY SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO COSTS, TO BE LIMITED TO 3 PAGES;

2.   THE RESPONDENT HAS 4 WEEKS FROM 30 JULY 2024 TO FILE ANY REPLY SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO COSTS, TO BE LIMITED TO 3 PAGES;

3.   ANY APPLICATION FOR COSTS WILL BE HEARD ON THE PAPERS UNLESS THE PARTIES ARE ADVISED OTHERWISE;

4.   FURTHER AMENDED NOTICES OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED BY 4PM 31 JULY 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER UNDER THE DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT – APPEAL – where a protection order was made against the appellant –– whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the appellant had committed domestic violence – whether the Magistrate erred in law or fact in finding that it was necessary or desirable to make a protection order against the appellant

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 4, 8-11, 37, 77, 78, 145, 164-166, 168 -169

CASES:

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

AVI v SLA [2019] QDC 192

Coal v Allied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194

Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219
DU v Jackson (DCJ) [2024] QCA 122
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
FY v Department of Child Safety [2009] QCA 67
GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248
Hamra v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 479
HBY v WBI & Anor [2020] QDC 81

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SGB v STG; WTS v STG and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QDC 128
Decision Date: 30 July 2024 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in the District Court involved two appellants, SGB and WTS, who appealed against a protection order made by the Southport Magistrates Court. The respondent in the matter had applied for a protection order against both appellants under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the Magistrates Court had erred in finding that the appellants had committed acts of domestic violence and whether it was necessary or desirable to make a protection order against them.

The court considered the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the Magistrates Court had erred in law in its approach to the evidence and its findings regarding the appellants' conduct. Specifically, the court held that the Magistrates Court had not correctly applied the statutory test for making a protection order and had not adequately considered the evidence presented. The court further held that the Magistrates Court had not properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and had not provided sufficient reasons for its findings.

The appeal was allowed in both cases. The protection orders made against the appellants were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Southport Magistrates Court to be heard by a different magistrate. The court also dismissed the application for a protection order filed by the respondent against WTS. The court directed the parties to file submissions regarding costs and set a deadline for the filing of further amended notices of appeal. The costs of the appeal were to be determined on the papers unless the parties were otherwise advised.

Orders

Orders of the court

IN D NO 8 OF 2023

1. IN RELATION TO SGB, APPEAL ALLOWED;

2. IN RELATION TO SGB, THE ORDER MADE BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SOUTHPORT ON 20 DECEMBER 2022 BE SET ASIDE;

3. IN RELATION TO SGB, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE SOUTHPORT MAGISTRATES COURT TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT MAGISTRATE AND LISTED AT THE FIRST CONVENIENT OPPORTUNITY AS NOTIFIED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THAT COURT TO FACILITATE THE FURTHER HEARING OF THE APPLICATION FILED ON 16 JULY 2021;

IN D NO 211 OF 2024

1. IN RELATION TO WTS, APPEAL ALLOWED.

2. IN RELATION TO WTS, THE ORDER MADE BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SOUTHPORT ON 20 DECEMBER 2022, BE SET ASIDE;

3. IN RELATION TO WTS THE APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST WTS ON 29 JULY 2021 IS DISMISSED.

IN D NO 8 OF 2023 AND D NO 211 OF 2024

1. THE APPELLANTS HAVE 14 DAYS FROM 30 JULY 2024 TO FILE ANY SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO COSTS, TO BE LIMITED TO 3 PAGES;

2. THE RESPONDENT HAS 4 WEEKS FROM 30 JULY 2024 TO FILE ANY REPLY SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO COSTS, TO BE LIMITED TO 3 PAGES;

3. ANY APPLICATION FOR COSTS WILL BE HEARD ON THE PAPERS UNLESS THE PARTIES ARE ADVISED OTHERWISE;

4. FURTHER AMENDED NOTICES OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED BY 4PM 31 JULY 2024.

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.

CITATION:	SGB v STG; WTS v STG [2024] QDC 128
PARTIES:	In D No 8 of 2023: SGB (Appellant) V STG (Respondent) In D No 211 of 2024: WTS (Appellant) V STG (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	8 of 2023 211 of 2024
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to s 164 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2024 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	30 July 2024
JUDGE:	Holliday KC DCJ
ORDER:	IN D NO 8 OF 2023 1. IN RELATION TO SGB, APPEAL ALLOWED; 2. IN RELATION TO SGB, THE ORDER MADE BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SOUTHPORT ON 20 DECEMBER 2022 BE SET ASIDE; 3. IN RELATION TO SGB, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE SOUTHPORT MAGISTRATES COURT TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT MAGISTRATE AND LISTED AT THE FIRST CONVENIENT OPPORTUNITY AS NOTIFIED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THAT COURT TO FACILITATE THE FURTHER HEARING OF THE APPLICATION FILED ON 16 JULY 2021; IN D NO 211 OF 2024 1. IN RELATION TO WTS, APPEAL ALLOWED. 2. IN RELATION TO WTS, THE ORDER MADE BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT AT SOUTHPORT ON 20 DECEMBER 2022, BE SET ASIDE; 3. IN RELATION TO WTS THE APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST WTS ON 29 JULY 2021 IS DISMISSED. IN D NO 8 OF 2023 AND D NO 211 OF 2024 1. THE APPELLANTS HAVE 14 DAYS FROM 30 JULY 2024 TO FILE ANY SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO COSTS, TO BE LIMITED TO 3 PAGES; 2. THE RESPONDENT HAS 4 WEEKS FROM 30 JULY 2024 TO FILE ANY REPLY SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO COSTS, TO BE LIMITED TO 3 PAGES; 3. ANY APPLICATION FOR COSTS WILL BE HEARD ON THE PAPERS UNLESS THE PARTIES ARE ADVISED OTHERWISE; 4. FURTHER AMENDED NOTICES OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED BY 4PM 31 JULY 2024.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER UNDER THE DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT – APPEAL – where a protection order was made against the appellant –– whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the appellant had committed domestic violence – whether the Magistrate erred in law or fact in finding that it was necessary or desirable to make a protection order against the appellant
LEGISLATION:	Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 4, 8-11, 37, 77, 78, 145, 164-166, 168 -169
CASES:	Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 AVI v SLA [2019] QDC 192 Coal v Allied Operations Pty Ltd v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194 Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219 DU v Jackson (DCJ) [2024] QCA 122 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 FY v Department of Child Safety [2009] QCA 67 GKE v EUT [2014] QDC 248 Hamra v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 479 HBY v WBI & Anor [2020] QDC 81