Case study:
Succesful Costs Application

Court:

Wyndham Magistrates’ Court

Facts:

This matter involved two Applications for Family Violence Intervention Orders made against our clients, who were the Respondents to the Applications. We acted on behalf of both Respondents, who are father and son.

The Applications were made by the Applicant on his own behalf and on behalf of his two young children, who were listed as Affected Family Members.

The Applicant’s relationship with the Respondent father was that the Applicant was the Respondent father’s former son-in-law. The Applicant and the Respondent father’s daughter were previously in a relationship and share two children.

The Applicant claimed that, whilst residing with the Respondent father’s daughter during 2024, the Respondent father threatened to harm both the Applicant and his children if the Applicant ever opened his mouth. The Applicant further alleged that the Respondent father made these threats whilst stating that he had connections and had lived in Australia for years.

The Applicant further alleged that the Respondent father had slapped him on multiple occasions, had previously strangled him, and had threatened to harm his children. The Applicant claimed that he had been subjected to ongoing physical and emotional abuse and, as a result, sought the protection of a Family Violence Intervention Order.

In relation to the Respondent son, the Applicant identified him as his brother-in-law. The Applicant stated that the Respondent son threatened him by stating that he would harm the Applicant’s children and “make a hole” in his heart. The Applicant claimed that he understood these statements as serious threats of physical violence intended to cause fear and intimidation.

The Applicant further alleged that the Respondent son reacted aggressively when circumstances did not go his way and that the household environment had become hostile and unsafe due to his behaviour.

The Applicant stated that in 2026, he made police report regarding the Respondent son, which was then disclosed to the Respondent son. The Applicant submitted that after becoming aware of the police report, the Respondent son’s behaviour increased the risk of further family violence.

The Applicant sought orders prohibiting our clients from:

• Committing family violence against the Protected Person(s);
• Intentionally damaging or threatening to damage the property of the Protected Person(s);
• Attempting to locate, follow or keep the Protected Person(s) under surveillance;
• Contacting or communicating with a Protected Person by any means;
• Approaching or remaining within 5 metres of a Protected Person;
• Going to or remaining within 200 metres of a nominated protected address, or any other place where a Protected Person lives, works, or attends school or childcare;
• Getting another person to do anything the Respondents must not do under the Orders; and
• Living with, spending time with, or communicating with any child protected by the Orders.

Procedural History and Submissions:

The matters first came before the Wyndham Magistrates’ Court for Mention. At that stage, Mr Dalli indicated that our clients opposed the Applications and intended to seek that both Applications be struck out. Mr Dalli also provided notice that our clients would seek an order for costs against the Applicant.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to allow the Respondent an opportunity to engage legal representation prior to our applications being heard.

At the subsequent hearing, the Applicant appeared legally represented. We proceeded with the applications on behalf of our clients and sought:

1. An order that both Family Violence Intervention Order Applications be struck out; and

1. An order that the Applicant pay our clients’ legal costs pursuant to section 154(3)(b) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) on the basis that the Applications had been brought frivolously and in bad faith.

Final Outcome:

The matter returned to Court and the Applicant had retained legal representation. The Applicant’s legal representative made submissions in support of the Applicants remaining before the Court, however the Court was persuaded by Mr Dalli’s submissions and struck out both Family Violence Intervention Order Applications brought against our clients.

Mr Dalli then made an application for costs against the Applicant and made submissions regarding the frivolous nature of the applications. The Applicant’s legal representative once again made submissions that the Court should not make a cost order. The Court once again was persuaded by the submissions of Mr Dalli and ordered that the Applicant pay each Respondent’s legal costs in the fixed sum of $1,750, a total of $3,500.

This was a successful outcome for our clients as both Family Violence Intervention Order Applications were struck out, no Intervention Orders were made against either of our clients, and both clients were awarded their legal costs.