Anthony Strik recently appeared for the Appellant in a District Court appeal concerning an Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) at Broken Hill District Court instructed by Jameson Law by the most able criminal solicitor: Nora Sayed.
The matter involved a neighbour dispute between two rural property owners near Wentworth NSW, with the properties had joint access to an easement on the Darling River. The respondent had sought an APVO in the Local Court based on several alleged incidents including confrontations over gate closures, bobcat operation on an easement, and boating activities on the Darling River.
The District Court allowed the appeal, applying the well-established three-part test from Smith v Blanch [2025] NSWCA 188 and Veness v Hodge [2015] NSWCA 20. The Court found that while the respondent may have subjectively held a fear, the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds for that fear on the balance of probabilities.
Key to the Court’s decision was:
– Careful review of video evidence from multiple incidents
– Assessment of the appellant’s uncontested evidence that he had closed but not locked gates
– Finding that heated conversations, while uncomfortable, did not rise to the level of intimidation or stalking
– Consideration that alleged prior incidents from over a year earlier could not establish a pattern of violence where no actual violence had occurred
The APVO was set aside, with each party ordered to pay their own costs.
The decision serves as a reminder that APVOs should not be made lightly, and that subjective fear alone is insufficient – applicants must establish reasonable grounds for that fear based on relevant and reliable evidence.
If you are looking for advice on easements. Reach out.