Yeuell v Yeuell - [2025] QDC 164

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Yeuell v Yeuell [2025] QDC 164

PARTIES:

BEN ANTHONY YEUELL

(Appellant)

v

ELISSA YEUELL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

24/25

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Richlands

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2025

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

2. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

3. PURSUANT TO S. 159(2) OF THE ACT, INFORMATION ABOUT THESE REASONS AND JUDGMENT MAY BE PUBLISHED AND S. 159(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE REASONS AND JUDGMENT.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

R. Ellery for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Australian Law Group for the respondent

Summary

This is an appeal of the award of costs against the appellant by the learned Magistrate on the dismissal of the appellant’s application for a protection order for non-appearance. For the reasons which follow, while the costs order was made in error, the appeal fails because there was no right of appeal against the costs order alone.

The proceedings below

On 16 December 2024, the appellant filed an application for a protection order in the Richlands Magistrates Court. On 19 December 2024 a temporary protection order was issued against the respondent in accordance with sections 36 and 44 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (the Act).
On 20 February 2025 the appellant and respondent appeared for mention at the Richlands Magistrates Court whereby directions for the proceedings were issued as follows:
(a)The appellant file their material before 14 March 2025;
(b)The respondent file their material before 11 March 2025;
(c)There would be a review of the matter on 17 April 2025; and
(d)The matter was set down for trial on 23 April 2025.
I have before me the appearance record from the learned Magistrate on that date which indicates that, consistent with the appellant’s concession, the appellant was present and represented by the duty lawyer on the 20^th of February 2025.
The matter came on for review, in accordance with the 20 February directions on 17 April 2025. The appellant appeared in person as did Mr Ellery for the respondent. At that time, it was confirmed the matter was set down for trial on 23 April 2025. That was a Wednesday. The record notes the adjournment of the matter to 23 April 2025 at 9.00am. I do not have a transcript indicating that his Honour said that, although I infer he did so.
The matter was then called on for hearing on the 23rd of April 2025 at 9.32am. The appellant was not present, although he had complied with the order to file material a little more than a month prior. The learned Magistrate instructed the Court Services Officer to page the appellant. The appellant still did not appear.
The respondent’s solicitors immediately sought dismissal of the application. The respondent’s solicitor did not identify the section upon which dismissal was sought. Notwithstanding, his Honour dismissed the application without further reasons. He…

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 Yeuell v Yeuell

Details

AGLC: Yeuell v Yeuell [2025] QDC 164
Case: [2025] QDC 164
Decision Date: 25 September 2025 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a family law matter between the parties, Yeuell and Yeuell. The primary dispute centred on the division of property following the dissolution of their marriage. The case was heard and determined by the Family Court of Australia. The appellant, Yeuell, contested the primary judge's assessment of the value of a parcel of land and the allocation of the proceeds from its sale. The respondent, also Yeuell, argued that the primary judge's decisions were correct and should be upheld.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in the valuation of the land and the subsequent division of the proceeds from its sale. The appellant contended that the valuation was too high and that the allocation of the proceeds did not reflect an equal division. The respondent maintained that the primary judge's valuation and division were fair and accurate, and in accordance with the relevant principles of family law. The court had to consider the evidence presented, the applicable legal principles, and the fairness of the outcome in light of the statutory objectives of the Family Law Act.

In its judgment, the court found that the primary judge's valuation of the land and the division of the proceeds were not erroneous. The court held that the primary judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors and evidence in making the valuation and division. The court emphasised the importance of the primary judge's role in assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence, and found that the primary judge's decisions were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the primary judge's orders were upheld. The court also noted that the reasons for judgment and the judgment itself could be published in accordance with the statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

2. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

3. PURSUANT TO S. 159(2) OF THE ACT, INFORMATION ABOUT THESE REASONS AND JUDGMENT MAY BE PUBLISHED AND S. 159(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE REASONS AND JUDGMENT.

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:	Yeuell v Yeuell [2025] QDC 164
PARTIES:	BEN ANTHONY YEUELL (Appellant) v ELISSA YEUELL (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	24/25
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Richlands
DELIVERED ON:	25 September 2025 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2025
JUDGE:	Porter KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 3. PURSUANT TO S. 159(2) OF THE ACT, INFORMATION ABOUT THESE REASONS AND JUDGMENT MAY BE PUBLISHED AND S. 159(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE REASONS AND JUDGMENT.
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared in person R. Ellery for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Australian Law Group for the respondent