REASONS FOR DECISION Background The applicant owned a residential property in the Australian Capital Territory relevant times. (‘the premises’) at all The applicant is the father of the first respondent and the second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The first respondent is a minor. In August 2014 the second respondent obtained a Domestic Violence Order for herself and the first respondent against the applicant. In May (‘the DVO’) 2015, by consent and without admissions, the DVO was extended for a further period of 24 months. The first respondent entered the premises without the consent and applicant’s damaged some of the property in March 2015. The first respondent applicant’s was then aged 15 years. Criminal charges of damaging the property were brought against the applicant’s first respondent who pleaded guilty in the Court of the Australian Children’s Capital Territory in September 2015. The Magistrate found the offences proved and dismissed both charges. In October 2015 the solicitors of applicant’s (‘the solicitors’) sent letters demand to the first respondent and to the second respondent seeking $5,000 for the damage to the property. applicant’s The History of the Proceedings On 24 December 2015 the solicitors attempted to file a civil dispute application in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the application’) (‘the against the first respondent and the second respondent. Due to an Tribunal’) underpayment of the filing fee the application was not accepted until 15 January 2016. In the application the solicitors had ticked the box identifying the type of application as:
REASONS FOR DECISION Background The applicant owned a residential property in the Australian Capital Territory (‘the premises’) at all relevant times. The applicant is the father of the first respondent and the second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The first respondent is a minor. In August 2014 the second respondent obtained a Domestic Violence Order (‘the DVO’) for herself and the first respondent against the applicant. In May 2015, by consent and without admissions, the DVO was extended for a further period of 24 months. The first respondent entered the premises without the applicant’s consent and damaged some of the applicant’s property in March 2015. The first respondent was then aged 15 years. Criminal charges of damaging the applicant’s property were brought against the first respondent who pleaded guilty in the Children’s Court of the Australian Capital Territory in September 2015. The Magistrate found the offences proved and dismissed both charges. In October 2015 the applicant’s solicitors (‘the solicitors’) sent letters of demand to the first respondent and to the second respondent seeking $5,000 for the damage to the applicant’s property. The History of the Proceedings On 24 December 2015 the solicitors attempted to file a civil dispute application (‘the application’) in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) against the first respondent and the second respondent. Due to an underpayment of the filing fee the application was not accepted until 15 January 2016. In the application the solicitors had ticked the box identifying the type of application as:
GC-v-OC-And-OJ-Civil-Dispute-2016-ACAT-125.docx