Case note : Surrey v Surrey Atkin, Bill
Material type:
ArticlePublication details: 2009Subject(s):
In: New Zealand Family Law Journal 6(7) September 2009 : 219-220Summary: This article discusses the implications of the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Surrey v Surrey. The author describes how the Court of Appeal has changed the ground rules for granting protection orders by creating a presumption that once an applicant has proved past violence and shown that fear of future violence is reasonable, an order is necessary. This marks a shift from the previous situation in which claimants may have struggled to show the order was a 'necessity' under s14 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. The author also discusses whether the decision should apply to situations involving psychological abuse and concludes there is no reason why it should not.
Subscriber access: http://www.lexisnexis.com/nz/legal/results/docview/attachRetrieve.do?csi=274463&A=0.59101633024953&risb=21_T10179055691&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&inline=y&smi=21671&componentseq=1&key=7WMP-4RS0-Y974-70G3-00000-00&type=pdf&displayType=full_pdf&l
This article discusses the implications of the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Surrey v Surrey. The author describes how the Court of Appeal has changed the ground rules for granting protection orders by creating a presumption that once an applicant has proved past violence and shown that fear of future violence is reasonable, an order is necessary. This marks a shift from the previous situation in which claimants may have struggled to show the order was a 'necessity' under s14 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. The author also discusses whether the decision should apply to situations involving psychological abuse and concludes there is no reason why it should not.
New Zealand Family Law Journal 6(7) September 2009 : 219-220