Wallin v Tiernan

The parties to this matter were Wallin (the applicant) and Tiernan (the respondent). The dispute concerned an application to revoke an apprehended violence order (AVO). The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the lower court had erred in refusing to revoke the apprehended violence order, notwithstanding that both parties had sought its revocation. The court was required to consider the principles governing the revocation of AVOs and the extent to which the court should intervene when parties jointly request the discharge of such an order.

The Court of Appeal held that the lower court had erred in its refusal to revoke the AVO. Their Honours reasoned that while the court retains a discretion to refuse revocation in certain circumstances, such as where there is a continuing risk to public safety or where one party is being coerced, these factors were not present in this case. The court emphasised that where both parties to an AVO jointly seek its revocation, and there is no evidence of coercion or ongoing risk, the court ought not to intervene and should grant the revocation. The court found that the lower court had failed to give sufficient weight to the joint request of the parties.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the apprehended violence order was revoked. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.