LAP v HBY
[2021] QCA 122
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
Enhanced View
[2021] QCA 122
COURT OF APPEAL
FRASER JA
Appeal No 2339 of 2021
DC No 4040 of 2018
LAPApplicant/Appellant
v
HBYFirst Respondent
WBISecond Respondent
BRISBANE
FRIDAY, 26 MARCH 2021
JUDGMENT
FRASER JA: The matter before me presents as an appeal – or an application for leave to appeal – from a decision made by the District Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction to vary a decision made by a Magistrate in proceedings under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. The respondents to the application or appeal submit that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal, and the proceeding should be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The same point was decided in favour of that submission in earlier proceedings between the same parties in WBI v HBY & Anor [2020] QCA 24. That case construed s 169(2) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 in a way which is consistent with the submission made by the respondents. That is to say, the statement in that subsection that the decision of the appellate Court upon an appeal shall be final and conclusive has the effect that the decision of the District Court upon an appeal from a decision of the Magistrate in the relevant proceeding under the Act is final and conclusive, including in the sense, that it is not amenable to appeal.
The decision in WBI v HBY referred to and approved previous decision of the Court of Appeal to the same effect. The applicant or appellant submits that it would be appropriate to adopt a different construction of s 169(2), particularly having regard to the fact that the construction adopted by this Court in previous decisions has the consequence that the appellant, and others in her position, have no right of appeal against a decision which, it is submitted, amounted to an egregious injustice, including by a denial of a fundamental right of a litigant to a fair hearing before an unbiased judicial officer.
The merits of the submission are not for me to decide. Taking the submission into account, however, it does not provide a basis for me not to follow a consistent line of decisions of this Court, including a decision made in a case involving the same parties, that there is no right of appeal. I mentioned during the hearing that it would be prudent for the appellant, who unfortunately is required to represent herself, to seek pro bono legal advice upon the question of whether she has any other remedy. My hands are tied by the course of authority and, I may say, by the statutory provision which I would in any event construe in the same way.
For that reason, I hold that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal. I order that the proceeding be struck out. I will hear the parties on costs.