Australia, Sept. 19 -- County Court of Australia issued text of the following judgement on Sept. 18:

1. As I shall explain, this proceeding is an example of the ugly reality of unmeritorious litigation and the use of a legal process in circumstances that pose a risk of further distress to a party.

2. Mr Leigh Buchanan brings this appeal from the decision of a Magistrate made on 31 May 2024 to refuse his application pursuant to the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 ("the Act") for a Personal Safety Intervention Order ("PSIO").

3. Mr Buchanan had sought a PSIO against a former neighbour of his, who is the respondent to this appeal. His application in the Magistrates' Court proceeded over two hearing days, during which time witnesses were called and evidence tendered. I have had the benefit of reading the transcript of the Magistrates' Court hearing. I consider that the presiding Magistrate demonstrated considerable patience and impartiality during the hearing in circumstances where that may have been no easy task because of the way Mr Buchanan conducted his application for a PSIO.

4. In seeking a PSIO, Mr Buchanan broadly alleged that the respondent had committed "prohibited behaviour" as defined in the Act by way of harassment, interference with property and stalking.

5. However, as the proceeding evolved, the broad allegations of "prohibited behaviour" fell away and were replaced by baseless allegations, submissions and complaints that had no evidentiary basis.

6. Regardless of the merits, by the time the application was heard, Mr Buchanan had moved to an address unknown to the respondent, and there was simply no evidence that the respondent was likely to continue to engage in prohibited behaviour towards him, even if she had done so in the past, which, to be clear, she had not.

7. The Magistrate correctly pointed out to Mr Buchanan (several times) that there was a total lack of evidence that the respondent was likely to continue to engage in "prohibited behaviour" and therefore there was no basis under the Act to make the order sought.

8. Undeterred, Mr Buchanan made submissions to the Magistrate regarding the operation of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 ("the FVPA") as a ground for the order sought by him. As the Magistrate carefully explained to him, the FVPA did not apply to Mr Buchanan's application for a PSIO, but nevertheless he persisted with submissions regarding the FVPA.[1] This highlights the way he conducted the proceeding, that is, to rely on a scatter gun approach of ideas as opposed to evidence, supported by baseless allegations and irrelevant submissions.

9. I pause to note that the respondent had initially sought a PSIO against Mr Buchanan, but sensibly did not pursue that application because by the time the proceeding was heard in the Magistrates' Court, Mr Buchanan had moved address and was no longer disturbing the peace in the neighbourhood.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2024/1437.html)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.