Domestic Violence Case Law Update:

Thursday, September 07, 2017

 SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289 

The Court of Appeal has handed down a significant decision that will encourage confidence for victims of domestic violence, who apply to the Family Court for a protection order.

The Family Court can make a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 ("the Act").  Before doing so however, the Court must first be satisfied that domestic violence has been used against the person who is applying for the order, or their child or both.  The Court must also consider that a protection order is necessary for the applicant's or their child's protection.

The Act is very clear in stating that even if behaviour seems trivial or minor in isolation, a protection order must not be denied on that basis alone.  Rather, the Court has an obligation to determine whether this apparently trivial behaviour actually forms a pattern.  If such a pattern is found, the Court must then determine whether it is of a nature that warrants protection.  If the answer to these questions is yes, a protection order must be granted.

Despite this, there have been mounting concerns that the Court's decisions not to grant such orders have been based on irrelevant criteria.

The Case
The Family Court in SN v MN originally granted the applicant, "Mrs N" a temporary protection order against her husband "Mr N" on an urgent basis.   As is available to defendants in urgent, or "without notice" protection order applications, Mr N defended the application and was successful. The Family Court ultimately discharged the order.  Mrs N was unsuccessful in her appeal to the High Court but eventually was granted a protection order by the Court of Appeal.

Mrs S claimed that Mr N was physically and psychologically abusive towards her, including incidences of his "erratic and explosive temper" and burning of hedge trimmings in the yard following an argument.  Mrs S also said that she was body slammed in the kitchen by Mr N and that he had raised his arms and punched a bottle of milk.  On a separate occasion, Mr N allegedly pushed Mrs S into a wall which led to a spinal injury and a complaint by Mrs S, to the police.  Verbal abuse, derogatory language and taunting by Mr N was also included in Mrs S's application.  Mr N had also breached a trespass order that was granted to Mrs S in 2014.

The Family Court's Approach
The Family Court found that the above allegations of abuse fell short of the definition of domestic violence under the Act.  In relation to the first incident of body slamming, the Family Court Judge did not consider this as abuse.  The Judge's reasons for finding that the second body slamming incident did not constitute physical violence included the police not considering that it warranted a criminal charge being laid, and that Mrs S had not applied for a protection order afterwards.

The Family Court found that Mr N's verbal abuse was intimidation under the Act's definition of "psychological abuse".  It was however, regarded as an isolated event and viewed in context of Mr N's frustration of a perceived delay in the parties' relationship property issues.  Mr N was having to pay for accommodation whilst Mrs S continued living in the former family home.

The multiple breaches of a trespass order, by Mr N were held by the Family Court Judge as nothing more than annoying.

The Court of Appeal's Approach
The approach taken by the Family Court, of assessing each event in isolation and separately, was criticised by Justice Harrison who delivered the Court of Appeal's judgment.  The Court of Appeal found that the lower Court had considered irrelevant factors, and with regards to Mr N's verbal abuse Justice Harrison stated that his reaction "…cannot be explained away as occurring in the context of a property dispute.  Such factors are immaterial to the assessment of whether or not domestic violence has in fact occurred".1   

Interpreting Mr N's behaviour as on the lower end of the scale and not amounting to domestic violence, as the Family Court had done, was disregarded by the Court of Appeal.  Justice Harrison upheld a fundamentally different approach which saw the behaviour as an exercise by Mr N of "…abusive power and domination of his wife".2    His Honour rejected the emphasis that the Family Court placed on Mrs S not having sought a protection order following alleged incidences of violence.

Looking Ahead
Ultimately the Court of Appeal stated that the "…net result of the Family Court decision was to set an unacceptably high threshold for behaviour which might qualify as physical or psychological abuse. The Act was intended to proscribe and condemn conduct of this nature, not to excuse or minimise it".
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a single act can be held to constitute domestic violence and that the overall pattern of offending behaviour is to be considered.  This is in line with the Act and recognises that domestic violence is often characterised by ongoing abuse, rather than one-off, isolated events.  

The Court of Appeal's decision sets out a straightforward and clear approach for the Family Court.  It is to focus on the effect of the offending behaviour, instead of speculating on the cause of it.

The Court of Appeal has accorded judicial recognition to the security and protection that the Act was intended to deliver.  Further, parties involved in a protection order application now have greater certainty on what information the Family Court can consider relevant.  Hopefully, this will ensure such applications can progress efficiently and predictably.  

If you have any questions or concerns about this topic please contact Peter Fuscic on (09) 306 6746 ( or Erica Burke on (09) 306 6725 ( from our Auckland City Office.

© McVeagh Fleming 2017

This article is published for general information purposes only.  Legal content in this article is necessarily of a general nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you require specific legal advice in respect of any legal issue, you should always engage a lawyer to provide that advice.


1    At [28-29].
2    At [37].

Recent Posts


Charity Protection Order Trusts Civil union Trust Confidentiality Valid wills Verbal abuse Marriage Clayton case Unequal Sharing Residential Personal Albany Office Abuse Constructive trusts Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 Compensation Lease Titles KiwiSaver Family Trusts 50/50 Split Tenants Gifting Part payment Property (Relationships) Act 1976 Trusts Bill Maritime Lien Family Court Acknowledgment of Debt Tenant Administrators duty Lankow v Rose Property Mortgagor Legislation update Dismissal Wills Act 2007 Section 14 Broadbent v Ministry of Social Development Sale of Goods Business Will Lease Privacy Act 1993 Financial Advisers Act 2008 Repayment Contract Law Duress Financial services Medical Fair Trading Act 1986 Undue influence Partner of resident Testamentary capacity Ministry Ship Re Estate of Campbell White v White ''Best Endeavours'' Amundson v Raos Terms of Trade Trust busting Divorce Asset Protection Fair share Body Corporate Family Home Grey Power Offending Testamentary writing Loss of income Will that do Psychological abuse Case Study Holiday pay Ship Registration Tamarapa v Byerley Litigation Blackwell v Hollings Sharing Economic disadvantage Trust Check Up Financial products SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289 Limitation Act 1950 Domestic Violence Act 1995 Seperation Maritime Law WINZ Directors' Duties Separate Property Unfair contract terms Murrell v Hamilton Auckland Office Section 15A Interest Shareholders' Agreement Skilled migrant points Invalid wills Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) Section 182 Family Proceedings Act 1980 Beneficiary Rights Interpretation of documents Executors duty Living standards Visa application Gifts Consumer credit contracts Violence Subsidies Personal Properties and Securities Act 1999 Mortgage Customary Authority Skilled migrant Employment Partnership based work visa Ship's Mortgage Interpretation Act 1999 Section 29 Company Law Recovery of money Charity begins at home Mortgagee Limitation Act 2010 Protector Wills Act 2007 Section 8 Companies Act 1993 Immigration Re Estate of Feron Physical abuse Six years Eviction Document Disclosure Vessel survey SMC Deceased's wishes Charities Principal Interpretation Act 1999 Hawkes Bay Trustee Company Limited v Judd Twelve years Frustration Domestic violence Expression of interest Commercial Property Anti-money laundering (AML) Splitting Up Intellectual Property Limitation defence Wills Act 2007 Section 11 Ilott v Mitson 2017 UKSC 17 Wills Insurance Limitation period Creating Trusts Relationship Property Employer Acknowledgment Section 15 Wills Act 2007 Due Diligence Zero Hour Contracts Reckless Trading Family Protection Act 1955 Pattern of offending Income Commercial Law Erceg v Erceg Character requirements Landlord Family Validity of Wills Vessel Sale and Purchase Rest Home Subsidies Estate Administration Indoor Management Rule Elder Law Ministry of Social Development Health and Safety Reform Bill Resident Break up Claims against estates Vessel surveyor Changes Division of Functions Immigration New Zealand Trustee Duties Financial services provider (FSP) Incapacity Work and Income Commercial Lump sum Matrimonial Home Casual employee Testamentary Promises Termination Wilson v Donnellan Testamentary freedom De facto Resident Visa Dividing Property Temper