YU MING LOWE AKA ERIC LOWE V HUANG HC WN CIV-2004-485-2630

YU MING LOWE AKA ERIC LOWE V HUANG HC WN CIV-2004-485-2630

The High Court upheld the Family Court's factual findings that the appellant engaged in a pattern of persistent, unwanted communications and conduct that objectively amounted to psychological abuse under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and that a protection order was necessary for the respondent's protection; the proposed new evidence was irrelevant and had no probative value and was therefore refused; the appeal was dismissed and directions to attend a Stopping for Violence Programme and to comply with the Family Court costs order were confirmed.

Citation
openlaw-e973ba71_1dbd_4198_b593_f895281f5032.pdf
Parties
Appellant: Yu Ming Lowe aka Eric Lowe; Respondent: Bi Xia Huang
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Family Court Protection Order / Appellate Rehearing (hearing Held; Reserved Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Order, Psychological Abuse, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Credibility Findings, Costs, Perpetrator Rehabilitation Programme
Family Law Domestic Violence Civil Procedure Evidence Law Protection Order Psychological Abuse Fresh Evidence on Appeal Credibility Findings +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Ming Lowe aka Eric Lowe

Appellant

Bi Xia Huang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Family Court Protection Order / Appellate Rehearing (hearing Held; Reserved Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court judge was wrong in finding psychological abuse under the Domestic Violence Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the making of a protection order was necessary for the respondent's protection under s14(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the Family Court judge erred in law or was biased

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Family Court's factual findings that the appellant engaged in a pattern of persistent, unwanted communications and conduct that objectively amounted to psychological abuse under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and that a protection order was necessary for the respondent's protection; the proposed new evidence was irrelevant and had no probative value and was therefore refused; the appeal was dismissed and directions to attend a Stopping for Violence Programme and to comply with the Family Court costs order were confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Protection order made by Family Court on 19 April 1999 is confirmed
  • Application to adduce new evidence on appeal declined