FBF v ABJ [2024] QCA 90

[2024] QCA 90 COURT OF APPEAL DALTON JA Appeal No 3445 of 2024 DC No 303 of 2023 FBF Appellant v ABJ First Respondent KBH Second Respondent BRISBANE MONDAY, 15 APRIL 2024 JUDGMENT DALTON JA: This is a matter which concerns the Domestic Violence and Family Protection Act. On 17 October 2023, Magistrate Pink made an order at the instance of the police protecting the first and second respondents from the appellant. The appellant filed a notice of appeal in the District Court on 18 October 2023. That appeal was heard by Judge Porter KC DCJ and he dismissed her appeal. On the 19th of March 2024, Ms FBF filed a notice of appeal in this Court appealing against the whole of the order made by Judge Porter. On 22 March 2024, the registry wrote to Ms FBF drawing her attention to s 169(2) of the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2012, which states -- 1 of 2 -- 2 relevantly: “The decision of the appellate court upon an appeal shall be final and conclusive.” The registry then organised this hearing for Ms FBF to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. On the 25th of March, Ms FBF filed another apparently interlocutory application in this appeal, supported by an allegation – or an affidavit which contains allegations which are scandalous and, to my mind, do not reveal any legal reasoning. At the hearing this morning on the show cause notice, Ms FBF appeared for herself but was unable to direct me to any helpful law on the topic. In the circumstances, I follow the numerous decisions in this Court which are to the effect that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the type of appeal Ms FBF wishes to run. The most recent of those decisions, to my knowledge, is DU v TG [2022] QCA 225. I note that that matter went on appeal – or went to the High Court on an application for special leave. The High Court dismissed the application for special leave, saying: “The proposed appeal advances no arguable ground against the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success. It would, therefore, be futile to grant the extension of time sought, and the application for special leave should be refused.” That High Court decision is at [2023] HCASL 79. This matter seems to me to fall squarely within the parameters of DU v TG, so for that reason I dismiss this appeal. Would you – yes. MS MORRIS: I would just like to put on record, we’re not seeking costs in this matter. DALTON JA: All right then. Thanks very much. Mr and Mrs ABJ, do you seek any costs in this matter? MR ABJ: No. No, your Honour. DALTON JA: All right then. Thank you very much. Well, I shall not make any order about costs. A transcript of my reasons is required. Would you adjourn the Court, please, Mr Associate. -- 2 of 2 --