Veness v Hodge [2015] NSWCA 20

Veness v Hodge [2015] NSWCA 20

Ellis DCJ's ex tempore reasons, read in context, incorporated by reference and adopted McCosker LCM's detailed findings, conclusions and reasons that Ms Veness's conduct amounted to intimidation, that Ms Hodge in fact feared ongoing harassment or intimidation, that there were reasonable grounds for those fears, and that the conduct was sufficient to warrant an APVO. His observations about a toxic wharf environment, businesses getting along and watering down the environment were background comments directed to the parties and did not show a misconstruction of the Crimes Act or a misapprehension of the District Court's function. No jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Summons Seeking Judicial Review of District Court Orders Dismissing an Appeal From Local Court Apprehended Personal Violence Order
Outcome
Summons filed on 2 July 2014 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error on the Face of the Record' 'apprehended Personal Violence Order' 'crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (nsw)' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error on the Face of the Record' 'apprehended Personal Violence Order' 'crimes (domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (nsw)' 'adequacy of Reasons']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Summons Seeking Judicial Review of District Court Orders Dismissing an Appeal From Local Court Apprehended Personal Violence Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court misconstrued or misapplied s 19 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) in confirming an apprehended personal violence order.' 'Whether the District Court misconceived the object of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).' 'Whether the District Court took irrelevant considerations into account, including that neighbouring businesses should get along and that the Act could water down a toxic business environment.' 'Whether the District Court failed to identify conduct amounting to intimidation, harassment or molestation sufficient to warrant an apprehended personal violence order.' 'Whether the District Court failed to give adequate reasons.' 'Whether any error amounted to jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record reviewable under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Ellis DCJ's ex tempore reasons, read in context, incorporated by reference and adopted McCosker LCM's detailed findings, conclusions and reasons that Ms Veness's conduct amounted to intimidation, that Ms Hodge in fact feared ongoing harassment or intimidation, that there were reasonable grounds for those fears, and that the conduct was sufficient to warrant an APVO. His observations about a toxic wharf environment, businesses getting along and watering down the environment were background comments directed to the parties and did not show a misconstruction of the Crimes Act or a misapprehension of the District Court's function. No jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record was...

Court Disposition

Summons filed on 2 July 2014 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons filed on 2 July 2014 be dismissed with costs.']