000			01696nab a2200265Ia 4500
001			116571
005			20250625151140.0
008			110331s2009 eng
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aAtkin, Bill _9725
245			_aCase note : _bSurrey v Surrey _cAtkin, Bill
260			_c2009
365			_a00 _b0
500			_aSubscriber 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
520			_aThis 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.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aPROTECTION ORDERS _9470
650	2	4	_aPSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE _9472
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSTATUTES _9578
500			_aNew Zealand Family Law Journal 6(7) September 2009 : 219-220
651	2	4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tNew Zealand Family Law Journal 6(7) September 2009 : 219-220
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE
999			_c1856 _d1856