TS v DT

[2025] ACTCA 6

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

TS v DT

Citation: 

[2025] ACTCA 6

Hearing Date: 

10 May 2023

Decision Date: 

21 February 2025

Before:

McCallum CJ, Baker and Rangiah JJ

Decision: 

The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – FAMILY VIOLENCE – Appeal of extension to family violence order – whether the primary judge was correct to find the magistrate erred in finding factors outside of s 86 of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) could be taken into account – whether the primary judge was required to undertake a review stricto sensu

Legislation Cited: 

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114Q

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 14, 34, 36, 37, 39, 82, 82A, 82B, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 95, 96

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 208, 214, 218

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E

Cases Cited: 

Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49; 384 FLR 119

Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; 203 CLR 172

Australian Capital Territory v Crowley [2012] ACTCA 52; 273 FLR 370

Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd [2008] HCA 13; 234 CLR 124

Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; 203 CLR 1

Stark (a pseudonym) v Hillam (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 272

TS v DT [2019] ACTSC 295

TS v DT [2020] ACTCA 43

TS v DT [2022] ACTSC 137; 369 FLR 228

Parties: 

TS (Appellant)

DT (Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

B Harders ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

Legal Aid ACT ( Respondent)

File Number:

AC 37 of 2022

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court:    ACT Supreme Court

Before:   Kennett J

Date of Decision:       10 June 2022

Case Title:                 TS v DT

Citation: [2022] ACTSC 137

THE COURT:

Introduction

1․The names of the parties to this appeal have been anonymised to give effect to the prohibition in s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) against the identification of parties to proceedings under that Act.

2․The appellant, TS, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing an appeal from an order of the Magistrates Court extending a final protection order made against him under the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT). The respondent, DT, is the protected person under the order. TS and DT were married. They separated following an incident of domestic violence in 2007 in which TS assaulted DT and their teenage son during a dispute over the son’s attitude to tertiary education. During the incident, TS was brandishing a knife. As a result of those events, TS was convicted of two charges of common assault.

3․In 2008 or 2009, a house jointly purchased by TS and DT some time earlier became vacant.  Having lived separately for some time, they agreed that they would both move into that house but remain separated under the one roof.  That arrangement continued until 2017 when, following a further incident of domestic violence in which TS again…