Fighting an Application for Intervention Order

Melbourne Magistrates' CourtThis is a case study on fighting an application for intervention order leading to a successful outcome

Our client was a respondent in an Intervention Order proceeding. The applicant was his ex girlfriend and they were both residents in Queensland when they were together. They had been separated for four years and had not had direct contact over that period. Following the break up, the applicant had commenced writing online about her perceived abuse she suffered at the client’s hand during the relationship. This was something that our client strongly denied. The writing became such that it was harassing and defamatory, and it resulted in the Queensland court granting an order in our client’s favour prohibiting the ex-girlfriend from writing about him on the internet and contacting him in any way.

In order to support that application in Queensland, the client printed and collated the things which the ex-girlfriend had written about him. She then subsequently moved to Victoria and also filed an Intervention Order against our client. The basis of the application was that she felt as though our client was stalking her online activity and that she felt unsafe and needed the protection of an order.

Kristina Kothrakis represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

We opposed the making of the intervention order. Before making a final order, a magistrate must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that family violence occurred, and that it is likely to continue. Our position was that his monitoring of her online activity which is posted on a public forum could not be viewed as family violence; that it simply did not meet the definition and must fail.

The material which was provided in support of the application was irrelevant to the primary questions which must be answered, at law. Kristina, in fighting the application for intervention order, submitted a significant amount of material in response, which resulted in the applicant withdrawing her application just prior to the hearing commencing. In the circumstances where we considered the application to be frivolous and vexatious, we sought costs from that party.

 


Kristina KothrakisKristina Kothrakis

Kristina has significant experience in criminal trials and also holds a degree in Science, majoring in Psychology, an invaluable area of knowledge, as many of her clients suffer from psychological disorders.

Kristina strives to achieve the best possible result for all her clients. Skilled, decisive and assertive, Kristina demonstrates dedication, care and professionalism at all times.

Visit Kristina’s profile to read more about her background and experience.
 


DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 06/06/2018