AA v BB [2015] NZHC 3330

AA v BB [2015] NZHC 3330

The High Court applied Surrey v Surrey and held the Family Court Judge's evaluative finding that a protection order was no longer necessary was open to him on the evidence (including psychiatric reports and the respondent's changed circumstances) and the appellant failed to show the Judge acted on a wrong principle, omitted or took irrelevant considerations, or was plainly wrong; the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 3330
Parties
Appellant: AA; Respondent: BB; Protected Persons: The children
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 (s 91) Against a Family Court Decision / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Orders, Necessity Test Under S14(1), Applicant Perception Under S14(5), Standard of Appellate Review for Discretionary Decisions, Admissibility of Evidence
Domestic Violence Family Law Child Welfare Appellate Review Protection Orders Necessity Test Under S14(1) Applicant Perception Under S14(5) Standard of Appellate Review for Discretionary Decisions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA

Appellant

BB

Respondent

The children

Protected Persons

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 (s 91) Against a Family Court Decision / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protection order remained necessary under s14(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 1995
  2. 2 Proper appellate standard of review for the necessity limb of s14(1) (discretionary vs rehearing)
  3. 3 Weight to be given to the applicant's subjective perception under s14(5)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court applied Surrey v Surrey and held the Family Court Judge's evaluative finding that a protection order was no longer necessary was open to him on the evidence (including psychiatric reports and the respondent's changed circumstances) and the appellant failed to show the Judge acted on a wrong principle, omitted or took irrelevant considerations, or was plainly wrong; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs, if any, to be sought by memorandum