Contesting a DVO Application

A Case Insight: Elysian Law Secures Dismissal of a Protection Order Application

Where There Is No Relevant Relationship Between Parties

At Elysian Law, we pride ourselves on achieving the right outcomes for our clients. One recent case demonstrates our team’s skill in navigating the nuanced legal framework surrounding domestic violence orders and Police Protection Notices (‘PPN’).

Protection Orders: Three Key Legal Elements

Pursuant to Section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), a Court can only make a Final Protection Order if it is satisfied of three key legal elements. These form the foundation of any application for a protection order in Queensland.

The Applicant must prove to the Courts on the balance of probabilities that there is a:

A relevant relationship between the aggrieved and the respondent;
That the respondent committed act/s of domestic violence towards the aggrieved; and
An order is either necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from future act/s of domestic violence.

Background: A Brief Relationship and Unfounded Allegations

Our client, a young single man had a brief consensual relationship with a woman that developed primarily through Instagram communication.

The relationship, which lasted approximately one to two months, ended when the woman requested no further contact. Our client respected her wishes. However, in the weeks that followed, she continued to engage with him, asking him to complete odd jobs for her and initiating contact at their local gym.

Despite the lack of engagement, the woman later filed a complaint with the Police, alleging domestic violence. The Police conducted a preliminary investigation in which both parties made admissions to being in a very short sexual relationship. They further stated they had no other connection to each other and no desire or intention to see each other again. Upon this, the Police served our client with a PPN naming him as a respondent and seeking a Protection Order be imposed with strict conditions for five years.

The Legal Issue: Was There a "Relevant Relationship"?

The case hinged on a critical legal question: Was there a “relevant
relationship” as defined under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act?

We immediately acted to contest the Temporary Protection Order. As we had limited time, we provided the Court evidence which supported our client’s position that illustrated the true nature of the relationship between the parties.

At the first Court mention, we argued that the relationship did not meet the legal definition of a relevant relationship. Furthermore, that the evidence and continued interaction post-relationship showed that the grounds relied on in the PPN were not accurate.

We also made successful submissions that this matter was unique and should not proceed to a hearing as there was no evidence to support the application.

The Court agreed with our position and declined to make a Temporary Protection Order and listed the application for a Pre-Trial Hearing. Only in exceptional circumstances can applications be assessed during a Pre-Trial Hearing.

Dismissal of DVO Application Before Hearing

Following this success, we provided further evidence from the client which showed that at time of the brief consensual relationship it was also not an exclusive relationship.

We relied on the decision of MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151 which details the test for a ‘couple relationship’ which is one of the accepted relevant relationships. The Court considered factors such as mutual trust, dependence, commitment, financial interdependence, joint property ownership, joint bank accounts, sexual relationship, and exclusivity. The case also assessed whether the parties in their interactions were ultimately testing each other’s suitability for the relations to advance to an ‘intimate relationship’.

We applied this case to the facts and argued the relationship did not meet the threshold of a couple relationship; therefore, it was not a relevant relationship under the Act. Thus, the application must be dismissed.

Once again, the Court agreed with our legal arguments. The application was dismissed in full, and our client was relieved of the significant stress and stigma that can accompany such proceedings.

Why This Matters

This case serves as an important reminder that not every personal
relationship qualifies for a protection order, and that deserving applications must be challenged. This maintains the integrity of applications before the Court.

At Elysian Law, we ensure our clients’ rights are robustly defended and that the law is applied fairly and appropriately.

How Elysian Law Help

This article is of a general nature, and some identifying features of the case has been deliberately left out to protect our clients. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require further information, advice or assistance for your specific circumstances, please contact our experienced Domestic and Family Violence Lawyers at Elysian Law.

Contact Elysian Law team for confidential free consultation and discuss our fixed fees and payment plans.

For more information about your rights and legal options if you’re responding to a protection order or facing domestic violence-related allegations, you can explore our dedicated legal services:

At Elysian Law, we understand the serious impact these matters can have on your personal and professional life. Our team is here to support you with expert legal representation and holistic care.