The District Court dismissed a s18 CARA appeal against the refusal of an apprehended personal violence order under s19 of the Crimes (Domestic & Personal Violence) Act 2007, finding the magistrate correctly preferred the consistent evidence of three defence witnesses over the self-represented appellant's account. The Court also upheld the costs order below, holding that the proceedings were not brought for a proper purpose under s19 but rather out of grievance over community property management, as evidenced by the appellant's attempts to settle the AVO application for $7,000, which undermined any claim of genuine fear. The Court observed that while a numerical imbalance of witnesses alone does not justify a costs order, the complete absence of any credible evidence supporting the appellant's case, combined with the improper purpose, supported the finding of vexatiousness.
The full text is available to signed-in members.