Case Study

In late 2019, an interim intervention order was taken out against our client. The interim order was given based on allegations that our client was heard on the protected person’s property walking up and down the driveway, jumping fences, and tapping on doors and windows. The protected person alleged that our client's car had been seen outside their residence on multiple occasions. 

Our client argued that the two had never met or in any way knew one another until the serving of the interim intervention order and a court date. 

Our client took out a cross-application, and it soon became apparent that the protected person’s ex-boyfriend was our client's family member. Therefore, the ex-boyfriend and his wife also applied for intervention orders under our guidance. All three applications were contested at a Mention Hearing, where we made submissions detailing the protected person's application was vague. The Magistrate requested further and better particulars to be filed before the Contest Hearing, the protected person never filed these documents. We got a favourable outcome for all three of our clients – the protected person's original application against our youngest client being rejected, and all three cross applications against the protected person being ordered for two years with costs.