TS v DT - [2025] ACTSC 215

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	TS v DT
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 215
Hearing Date:	21 May 2025
Decision Date:	22 May 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) There is no order as to costs.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACT MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against family violence order – where first ground of appeal doomed to fail by reason of a Court of Appeal judgment binding on the parties – where second ground of appeal doomed to fail because the order appealed from has expired – appeal dismissed as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5172 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), ss 86, 92, 93, Dictionary Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37M
Cases Cited:	Barlow v Law Society of the ACT (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 121 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 TS v DT [2019] ACTSC 295 TS v DT [2020] ACTCA 43 TS v DT [2022] ACTSC 137 TS v DT [2025] ACTCA 6 TS v UG [2023] ACTSC 389 von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Co Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 109; 1 Qd R 681
Parties:	TS (a pseudonym) ( Appellant) DT (a pseudonym) ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented ( Appellant) BK Harders ( Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented ( Appellant) ACT Legal Aid ( Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 44 of 2022
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Stewart Date of Decision: 24 November 2022 Case Title: DT v TS Court File Number: FVO 489 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․This is an application in proceeding by the respondent to this appeal, DT, to strike out the appeal pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The application was originally made on the basis that the appeal was incompetent pursuant to r 5172 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). However, pursuant to leave granted on 9 May 2025, the application was amended so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
2․The appeal which is sought to be struck out is an appeal by a person bound by a family violence order (FVO). As described later, that order has been extended on a number of occasions. The appeal relates to an extension of the FVO as a result of orders of the Magistrates Court made on 24 November 2022. The two grounds of appeal to this court are:
1.The magistrate took only s. 86 of FV Act as relevant when making the extension.
2.He extended it for too long by 2 years. It was last extended by 1 year. With this two years the FVO will be for 7 years.

3․The terms of these grounds of appeal are significant for the present application in proceeding.
4․The grounds of the respondent’s amended application include the following:
1.It has long been established that a court has the power to ensure that its own processes are not abused (von Risefer & Ors v Permanent Trustee Co P/L & Ors

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.

Continue reading TS v DT

Details

AGLC: TS v DT [2025] ACTSC 215
Case: [2025] ACTSC 215
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court was brought by the appellant, TS, against an order made by the respondent, DT, in the ACT Magistrates Court. The order was a family violence order made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and the dispute centred on the validity and continued enforcement of that order. The appeal was heard by a single judge in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues for determination by the Court were two-fold. The first was whether the appeal was valid given a previous decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court which was binding on the parties and which effectively determined the merits of the appeal. The second was whether the appeal could proceed given that the family violence order had expired by the time the appeal was heard. The Court held that the first ground of appeal was unavailing because the binding decision of the Full Court had already determined the appeal's outcome. The second ground of appeal was also unavailing because the order had expired, and the Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a non-existent order.

The Court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Court's process, and dismissed the appeal. The Court did not make an order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) There is no order as to costs.

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.