Garcia v Brigitte[2023] QDC 210

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Background 

1. [1]
   Ms Brigitte sought to commence proceedings against Ms Garcia pursuant to the provisions of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld).  The initial appearance date, further to the resulting complaint and summons, was 11 May 2022.  Ms Garcia had also brought an application with reference to the provisions of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) against Ms Brigitte.  The initial appearance date for that cross-application was 3 August 2022.
2. [2]
   On 17 October 2022, Ms Garcia’s complaint as concerns Ms Brigitte was dismissed.  Ms Brigitte’s application was allowed, and an order was made that Ms Garcia keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months, further conditioned that she:

1. i)
   not threaten to assault or do any bodily injury to the complainant or any person under the care or charge of Ms Brigitte;
2. ii)
   not threaten to procure any other person to assault or to do any bodily injury to Ms Brigitte, or any person under the care or charge of Ms Brigitte;
3. iii)
   not threaten to damage any property of Ms Brigitte; and
4. iv)
   not threaten to procure any other person to destroy or damage any property of Ms Brigitte.

3. [3]
   The aforementioned orders of 17 October 2022 were made in Ms Garcia’s absence.
4. [4]
   By way of a Notice of Appeal filed 3 February 2023, Ms Garcia appeals to this Court in relation to the orders made granting the peace and good behaviour order against her in favour of Ms Brigitte. Ms Garcia seeks that the peace and good behaviour order made against her be set aside and the proceedings remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-hearing.  As the appeal was filed out of time^[1], Ms Garcia also seeks^[2] an extension of time in which to appeal.  Ms Garcia does not pursue any appeal in relation to the dismissal of her complaint as against Ms Brigitte.^[3]
5. [5]
   Ms Garcia’s primary contention is that she had been given leave to appear by telephone at the hearing review or mention of 17 October 2022, and so it was not correct to say that she had failed to appear; she had been awaiting a call from the Court.  Ms Garcia submitted that it was unfair that the hearing proceeded and the orders sought by Ms Brigitte made in her absence and without her having had an opportunity to be heard.

Legislative Framework – Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld)

6. [6]
   The complaint of Ms Brigitte was a complaint in respect of the breach of the peace.^[4] 
7. [7]
   Section 7 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) provides that the Court before which a defendant appears in obedience to a summons shall hear and determine the matter of the complaint.  Section 7(3) of the Act provides:

(3)  Upon a consideration of the evidence, the Court may –

1. (a)
   dismiss the complaint; or

2. (b)
   make an order that the defendant shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour for such time, specified in the order, as the Court thinks fit.

8. [8]
   Section 8 of the Act prescribes options available to the Court where  “[i]f at the time and place appointed by summons for the hearing of the complaint the defendant does not appear when called and proof is made to the Court of due service of the summons in accordance with section 56 of the Justices Act”. Those options are^[5]:

1. i)
   to issue a warrant to apprehend the defendant and bring the defendant before a court to answer the complaint and to be further dealt with according to law; or
2. ii)
   to adjourn the hearing to a time and place to be determined by the court, for any reason appearing to the court to be a sufficient reason; or
3. iii)
   to proceed in the absence of the defendant to hear and determine the matter of the complaint as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as if the defendant had personally appeared before the court in obedience to the summons, in which case the court may make an order referred to in section 7.

9. [9]
   Section 9 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) relevantly provides as follows:

9 Application of Justices Act

Subject to this part and subject to any necessary modifications and any modifications prescribed by regulation, the provisions of and proceedings and procedures under the Justices Act 1886 applicable in the case of the prosecution of an offence in a summary way under that Act are applicable in the case of proceedings by way of complaint in respect of which an order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour may be made pursuant to section 7 as if such complaint were a complaint in respect of such an offence.

The Nature of the Appeal Proceedings

10. [10]
    Further to section 9 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld), outlined above, the provisions of part 9 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), entitled Appeals from the Decisions of Justices, therefore have application.  Section 222(1) of the Justices Act provides:

1. (1)
   If a person feels aggrieved as complainant, defendant or otherwise by an order made by justices or a justice in a summary way on a complaint for an offence or breach of duty, the person may appeal within 1 month after the date of the order to a District Court Judge.

11. [11]
    Section 223 of the Act further provides:

1. (1)
   An appeal under section 222 is by way of rehearing on the evidence (original evidence) given in the proceeding before the justices.

2. (2)
   However, the District Court may give leave to adduce fresh, additional or substituted evidence (new evidence) if the Court is satisfied there are special grounds for giving leave.

3. (3)
   If the Court gives leave under subsection (2), the appeal is:

1. (a)
   by way of rehearing on the original evidence; and

2. (b)
   on the new evidence adduced.

12. [12]
    The powers of a Judge on hearing an appeal are provided for in section 225 Justices Act 1886 (Qld). Section 225 provides:

1. (1)
   On the hearing of an appeal, the Judge may confirm, set aside or vary the appealed order or make any other order in the matter the Judge considers just.

2. (2)
   If the Judge sets aside an order, the Judge may send the proceeding back to whoever made the order or to any Magistrates Court with directions of any kind for the further conduct of the proceedings including, for example, directions for rehearing or reconsideration.

…

History of Proceedings before the Magistrates Court 

13. [13]
    Ms Garcia commenced the appeal and filed her submissions on the appeal without recourse to a transcript or the Magistrates Court file.  The hearing of the matter was initially adjourned for the transcript of proceedings of 17 October 2022 to be obtained.  The transcript of the proceedings of that date which was initially provided to the Court was incomplete, necessitating further enquiries to be made.  A transcript of the proceedings of 3 August 2022 before the Magistrates Court was also obtained, given the divergence that existed between the position of the parties, at least at that time, as to what orders were made on that date, and the relevance of those orders to Ms Garcia’s submissions on this appeal. 
14. [14]
    The chronology of proceedings before the Magistrates Court in this matter are set out below.  The circumstances are somewhat unusual. 
15. [15]
    Hearing of 11 May 2022:  This was the first appearance as concerns the proceedings commenced by Ms Brigitte.  Ms Brigitte appeared on that date.  Ms Garcia did not appear but had sent email correspondence to the Court advising of the reason for her non-attendance, and that she did intend to defend the matter.  The matter was adjourned to 17 August 2022 for hearing, with a review date of 3 August 2022.
16. [16]
    Proceedings of 3 August 2022:  At the review of 3 August 2022 both parties appeared in person.  The endorsements on the Court file indicate that the hearing date of 17 August 2022 was vacated, and the matter was listed for hearing on 6 October 2022, and also for “HR” being, as is accepted between the parties, to indicate a “hearing review”, on 22 September 2022.  Further directions were made around the filing of further material by Ms Brigitte. 
17. [17]
    Ms Garcia contended that at the hearing of 3 August 2022 she was given leave to appear by telephone rather than in person at the hearing review of 22 September 2022.  Although requiring some interpretation, the handwritten endorsements on the Court file included a reference to leave being granted to appear by phone consistent with that having been ordered.  Ms Brigitte, however, did not recall such an order having been made. It was or that reason that the transcript of proceedings of 3 August 2022 was obtained.
18. [18]
    The transcript of decision of 3 August 2022 includes the following passage^[6]:

HER HONOUR:  So, the hearing is relisted to Court 9 at 9 o’clock on the 6th of October 2022. And the previous directions continue to apply in respect of your witnesses and anyone else.  At the moment, you’ve filed all of your evidence, and I think each of you is going to be a witness.  You’ve filed your own evidence?

MS BRIGITTE:  Yes.

HER HONOUR:  You’ve only filed your own evidence. So that doesn’t really apply.  There will be another hearing review like this one in Court 9 at 11 o’clock on the 22nd of September, which is when the Court will make sure that everything that needs to be done has been done.

MS GARCIA:    Do I have the opportunity to ask for mediation in respect to my application?

HER HONOUR:  You can, but you’re still going to have to come to Court.

MS GARCIA:   Sure.

HER HONOUR:  And the thing is that it won’t really resolve anything because they – it looks to me like they’re the same matters that are dealt with by each of you. So it is unfortunate that it can’t be resolved by mediation. But I – it won’t achieve anything.

I can grant you leave to appear by telephone on the hearing review, given that you’ve got work commitments.

MS GARCIA:    That will be fantastic.  Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:  That means that from 11 o’clock onwards, on the   22nd of September you must – you must be available by telephone, and you must contact the Court and provide your contact number.

MS GARCIA:    Absolutely.

HER HONOUR:  And that’s only for the hearing review on the 22nd of September.  You must be here in person on the 6th of October or a decision may be made in your absence.

19. [19]
    The transcript indicates that arrangements were then made for copies of the orders and directions made to be emailed to Ms Garcia, and, if requested, to Ms Brigitte. 
20. [20]
    A sealed copy of the hearing directions made on 3 August 2022 relating to the progress and conduct of the hearing are on the Magistrates Court file. They do not include any reference to Ms Garcia having been given leave to appear by telephone at the review on 22 September 2022.  That is not to suggest that such orders were not made and that Ms Garcia was not given leave to appear by telephone at the review – it is evident from the above transcript excerpt that she was. However, to the extent that there may have subsequently been reference to that document, it would not have been evident that such leave had been given at that time.
21. [21]
    To the extent that Ms Brigitte had originally submitted that the orders made on 3 August 2022 were to require Ms Garcia to attend in person, other than to collect the final decision, that is no longer maintained by Ms Brigitte, who, now having had regard to the transcript, accepts that she was mistaken in that initial recollection.
22. [22]
    Administrative Orders: Following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022, the date of 22 September 2022 became the National Day of Mourning for Her Majesty the Queen, and a public holiday.  The Magistrates Court was therefore not sitting on 22 September 2022 in order to hear the hearing review in this matter which had been listed for that date. 
23. [23]
    On 15 September 2022, the hearing date and the hearing review date for the matter were vacated, administratively.  Both parties accept that they received correspondence from the Court advising of this change.  The notice sent to the parties provided:

Take notice that the hearing of the above charges/application has been adjourned as follows –

And then further down the page:

Adjourned for review.

24. [24]
    Email correspondence accompanying the sending of the adjournment notice, electronically, referred expressly to the matters being adjourned for “review mention” in Court 9 at 11am. 
25. [25]
    Proceedings of 17 October 2022:  The endorsements on file record that there was no appearance by Ms Garcia (as respondent), and that no phone number was provided to the Court. As outlined above, a transcript of the proceedings of this date was obtained after the first hearing date of this appeal.  It was then identified by the Court that the transcript provided may be incomplete, and a further revised transcript was obtained.  The complete transcript indicates that the matter was heard before two Magistrates on the date of 17 October 2022.
26. [26]
    The transcript of proceedings before the first court commences at 11.08am.  The presiding Magistrate is informed by an unidentified speaker that Ms Brigitte is in the back of the courtroom in relation to the “behaviour reviews” that were listed for 11 am, but that the other party – being a reference to Ms Garcia – had yet to approach.
27. [27]
    The transcript then includes the following exchanges as between the first learned Magistrate and Ms Brigitte^[7]:

HIS HONOUR:    Just bear with me, Ms Brigitte….  I’m just going to read some notes on the file….  All right.  Ms Brigitte, I see that Ms Garcia hasn’t appeared today.  You’d be aware that what happened is you appeared before the Court on the 3rd of August where the matter was adjourned until the 22nd of September, which was the National Day of Mourning for the Queen, so, administratively, your matter was adjourned from that date until today for you both to appear. 

28. [28]
    These observations by his Honour were punctuated by Ms Brigitte indicating “yes” in agreement.  His Honour then addressed Ms Brigitte as to whether other directions relating to the filing of material had been complied with, and whether the further material filed by Ms Brigitte had been served on Ms Garcia.  The exchange between his Honour and Ms Brigitte then continued as follows^[8]:

HIS HONOUR:  Now, Ms Brigitte, I see that Ms Garcia hasn’t appeared so what are you seeking I do today then in Ms Garcia’s absence?

29. [29]
    Ms Garcia, it appears, might not have heard what his Honour was inquiring in relation to and replied that she was hard of hearing.^[9]  His Honour then continued^[10]:

HIS HONOUR:  I’m led to believe, and I’ll just confirm on the file, that she was sent a notice.  Okay.  I’m satisfied that Ms Garcia was sent a copy of the notice of adjournment, Ms Brigitte, and she has not appeared. So in those circumstances I’m just happy to consider your application where she’s the respondent.  So if you can just give me a moment I’ll just read your further affidavit and I’ll go from there…

30. [30]
    Of note, his Honour did not make any reference to Ms Garcia having been given leave to appear by telephone at the earlier hearing review of 22 September 2022 which was moved to the 17^th of October 2022.^[11] 
31. [31]
    After some further brief exchanges with reference to the material, his Honour indicated that given the volume of the material, he would stand down to consider the material to ensure he was “satisfied to make an order” and that he also intended to first interpose some other matters that were waiting to be heard.  At that time, it was identified that another Court had become free and his Honour determined to transfer the matter to that other Court to be heard before a different Magistrate, in anticipation that it may in that way be determined more expeditiously.
32. [32]
    The matter commenced before the second Court at 11.49am.  The transcript confirms the matter to have proceeded before that second Magistrate on the basis of having been listed for hearing review on that date of 17 October 2022. 
33. [33]
    The transcript of proceedings before the second Magistrate in its entirety reads as follows:

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Good morning. So, ma’am, you are?

MS BRIGITTE:  Eva Brigitte.

HER HONOUR:  Okay. All right. Well, I can see that this matter was set for hearing review today and you have filed material, and it looks like Ms Garcia has filed material as well.

MS BRIGITTE:  Yes.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Is she still living next door to you?

MS BRIGITTE:  Yes.

HER HONOUR:  It’s just strange that she’s not here today.

MS BRIGITTE:  No.

HER HONOUR:  You haven’t seen her?

MS BRIGITTE:  I saw her this morning.

HER HONOUR:  Yes.

MS BRIGITTE:  Yep.

HER HONOUR:  But not at court?

MS BRIGITTE:  No.

HER HONOUR:  No. All right. And you understand that the hearing date - have you been given a hearing date?

MS BRIGITTE:  Sorry, I’m a little bit hard of hearing.

HER HONOUR:  Have you been given a hearing date?

MS BRIGITTE:  I thought this was the hearing today.

HER HONOUR:  They’ve listed it for hearing review.

MS BRIGITTE:  Because the first review we came to, the judge said to me that my affidavit was too long, that I had to only put in where she’s actually assaulted me, damaged my property - - -

HER HONOUR:  Yes.

MS BRIGITTE:  - - - threatened to damage my property, or threaten my family or - - -

HER HONOUR:  Yes.

MS BRIGITTE:  - - - assaulted. So I had to - because I - make it concise, so I put in all the video footage that actually shows her assaulting, damaging my property - - -

HER HONOUR:  Right.

MS BRIGITTE:  - - - and threatening - - -

HER HONOUR:  Yes.

MS BRIGITTE:  Yep.

34. [34]
    Her Honour then proceeded to make orders and deliver her decision, commencing at 11:56am. The learned Magistrate dismissed Ms Garcia’s complaint and application for a peace and good behaviour order against Ms Brigitte on the basis that “the matter was in Court today and Ms Garcia had failed to appear”, and, further, that her Honour wasn’t able to find any email or phone correspondence from Ms Garcia on the Court file. 
35. [35]
    The application by Ms Brigitte was dealt with in the absence of Ms Garcia.  The reasons of the learned Magistrate on that application were, in their entirety, as follows^[12]:

Where Ms… Brigitte is the applicant – again…I take into account that Ms Garcia had failed to appear today; that she was sent correspondence and a notice of adjournment; that she has not emailed or phoned the Court; that she has not appeared today.  So in relation to that application, I deal with it in her absence.

I order that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months from today’s date, and that she not threaten to assault or to do any bodily injury to the complainant or any person under the care or charge of the complainant; that she not threaten to procure any other person to assault or to do any bodily injury to the complainant or any other person under the care or charge of the complainant; that she must not threaten to damage any property of the complainant; and she must not threaten to procure any other person to destroy or damage any property of the complainant.

Application for Extension of Time

36. [36]
    Pursuant to section 222(1) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), the time limit for filing a notice of appeal is one calendar month.  A District Court Judge has the power to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal pursuant to section 224(1)(a) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).
37. [37]
    In R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667, the Court of Appeal articulated the two considerations of relevance when determining whether an application to extend time for filing an appeal should be granted; namely, whether there is any good reason shown for the delay, and whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. In determining whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension, there must be a provisional assessment of the general merits of the appeal along with a consideration of any prejudice to the respondent.
38. [38]
    The current appeal was filed over two months out of time, on 3 February 2023.  By way of the notice of application for extension of time for filing a notice to appeal to a District Court Judge filed 3 February 2023, and other material filed, Ms Garcia attributes the delay, in part, to a lack of knowledge of the court system, in circumstances where she was not legally represented in the Magistrates Court and continues to represent herself.  Ms Garcia had also initially made application to the Magistrates Court for a re-hearing of the complaint^[13] before being made aware of the prospect of bringing an appeal pursuant to section 222.
39. [39]
    The delay here is not particularly lengthy, and it is evident that the appellant had been seeking recourse for what occurred from an earlier point in time.^[14] 
40. [40]
    I am satisfied, in the circumstances, that the application for an extension of time for filing of the notice of appeal ought to be granted.

Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence

41. [41]
    Pursuant to section 223(2) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), the District Court may give leave to adduce fresh, additional or new evidence if the Court is satisfied there are special grounds for so giving leave.^[15]  To the extent that each of the parties within the material filed on the application have made reference to conduct of the other since the orders the subject of this appeal made in October of last year, such matters are not of relevance to the issues on this appeal, and leave is not given to adduce evidence of those matters.
42. [42]
    Leave is given to adduce the further evidence contained within the material filed only to the extent that the evidence or material pertains to the reasons why this appeal was brought outside of the one-month prescribed appeal period and as relate to Ms Garcia’s submissions that she did not fail to appear on 17 October 2022, and why she did not attend in person on that date.  I note that Ms Brigitte did not oppose the granting of leave to Ms Garcia to adduce the material in support of these aspects of her appeal and submissions.

Discussion 

43. [43]
    Ms Garcia’s submissions to this Court as to why she did not attend in person at Court on 17 October 2022 include the following: 

    • On 3 August 2022 she was given leave to appear by telephone at the hearing review of 22 September 2022. 
    • She had understood that the administrative orders made moving the matter from 22 September 2022 to 17 October 2022 resulted in the matter being listed for hearing review only on that later date rather than hearing. 
    • She had understood that the means by which she was required to appear at the  hearing review of 17 October 2022 would not have changed from what had been indicated in Court on 3 August 2022 may be the case when the hearing review was to have proceeded on 22 September 2022, without her being informed of that.
44. [44]
    I accept the material before the Court establishes that on 3 August 2022, Ms Garcia was given leave to appear by telephone at the hearing review of 22 September 2022.  I also accept that the listing of 17 October 2022 was a hearing review date adjourned administratively from 22 September 2022;  the listing is referred to a number of times as a hearing review in the transcripts of the proceedings of 17 October 2022. 
45. [45]
    I accept that the expectation would have been that the matter would be listed for and proceed to substantive hearing on a date thereafter, subject, of course, to the attendance of the parties at that time.  While the adjournment notice specified, as Ms Brigitte highlights, that the parties’ personal attendance was required, I am of the view that this did not necessarily mean that any attendance must be in person, irrespective of any other order.
46. [46]
    Ms Brigitte, fairly and reasonably, upon having recourse to the transcripts and other material referred to in the course of submissions, did not submit that the Court should proceed contrary to the submissions of Ms Garcia as to how it was that she came to not appear in person on 17 October 2022, and that she had been at home expecting to be contacted by telephone. Ms Brigitte submitted that it was, however, a matter for the learned Magistrate to have decided whether it was appropriate to proceed in Ms Garcia’s absence at the time.
47. [47]
    While a legal practitioner may have understood it to be prudent to make contact with the Registry ahead of the date to which the matter had been adjourned about the intention to appear by telephone, Ms Garcia was not legally represented. It is, nonetheless, clear, in my view, why Ms Garcia would have proceeded on the basis that she was still entitled to appear by telephone at the hearing review on 17 October 2022 further to the orders made on 3 August 2022 when the hearing review was originally to have proceeded on 22 September 2022. I accept that Ms Garcia’s indicated understanding is consistent with the orders made on 3 August 2022 as framed.
48. [48]
    There is nothing in the transcript of proceedings which suggests that either of the learned Magistrates before whom the matter proceeded on 17 October 2022 had an appreciation that orders were made on 3 August 2022 that had permitted Ms Garcia to appear by telephone at the hearing review of 22 September 2022 before it was adjourned administratively to 17 October 2022. No doubt, had that been appreciated, matters may have proceeded differently.
49. [49]
    I also wish to note that Ms Brigitte did not mislead the Court in any way. Ms Brigitte did not seek any positive orders from the Court in the absence of Ms Garcia or that the matter proceed in Ms Garcia’s absence. I accept that Ms Brigitte had been acting under a misunderstanding or misapprehension herself of the effect of the orders of 3 August 2022.
50. [50]
    I accept that Ms Garcia was intending to appear at the hearing review on 17 October 2022, but to appear by telephone.  Ms Garcia’s conduct in defence of the application against her, or the complaint against, and as concerns her own related cross-application, both in the lead up to the date of 17 October 2022 and upon her being informed of the orders having been made in her absence, is entirely consistent with her expressed intention to be heard on that date. Ms Brigitte does not submit that the Court should now proceed on any different basis.
51. [51]
    In my view, in the circumstances, Ms Garcia, being available to appear by telephone did not, here, fail to appear, as contemplated within the terms of section 8 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld), and, accordingly, the power to proceed to determine the matter of the complaint by Ms Brigitte in Ms Garcia’s absence was not enlivened. I do not find that the fact that the learned Magistrate or Court Clerk were, at the time, unable to locate a telephone number of Ms Garcia on file to alter the appropriate outcome in this case, or that it is necessary to determine the circumstances by which that occurred. The circumstances here are such that Ms Garcia has been denied a fair opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the appeal will be allowed.

Further Matters – Adequacy of Reasons

52. [52]
    In exercising power under section 8 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) where enlivened, one of the options available to the Court is to proceed in the absence of the defendant to hear and determine the matter of the complaint as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as if the defendant has personally appeared before the Court in obedience to the summons and may make an order referred to in section 7. That is a reference to the ability of the Court under section 7(3) of the Act, to, upon a consideration of the evidence, either dismiss the complaint or make an order that the defendant shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour for such time as specified in the order and as the Court thinks fit.
53. [53]
    Unfortunately, here, the reasons for decision of the Magistrate are devoid of any statement of the reasons for concluding that the making of an order was appropriate. Although the material may only have been considered for a brief time, based on the transcript, I accept that that is not in and of itself to indicate that it was not considered, or not considered adequately. However, the factual and legal considerations which informed the learned Magistrate’s decision and her discretion to make the order are not revealed on the face of the record.
54. [54]
    An error of law will have occurred when the Court which hears and decides such an application does not provide adequate reasons. It may be accepted that such may be a challenge in the busy Magistrates Court jurisdiction, but there remains a need to balance the administering of expeditious justice with the need to include reasons that support the Court’s decision.^[16] Although not necessary to determine in light of the reasons that I have already reached with reference to the principal ground advanced by Ms Garcia on this appeal, the failure to provide any reasons in support of the decision to grant the peace and good behaviour order would, here, in my view, also constitute an error.

Orders

55. [55]
    For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is allowed. I make the following orders:

1. The date for filing of the notice of appeal is extended to 3 February 2023.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The order made in the Magistrates Court at Southport on 17 October 2022, as relates to the complaint against Ms Garcia and the making of a peace and good behaviour order against Ms Garcia, is set aside.
4. The complaint of Ms Brigitte as against Ms Garcia is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Southport for re-hearing.
5. The parties to be heard on the issue of costs.