A mother appealed three findings from a fact-finding hearing. Two serious assault allegations had been replaced with mutual combat findings and critical video evidence had not been properly considered. The High Court allowed the appeal on two grounds and ordered a rehearing — but by then the case had been running for years, with no child contact throughout.
2 min readAll cases are fully anonymised and publicly available. Where a source link is provided, you can read the full judgment for yourself. These observational insights reflect community experiences and do not constitute legal advice.
The mother raised allegations of domestic abuse including an alleged strangulation, a subsequent assault, and a pattern of coercive control — being prevented from studying, having her phone checked, being stopped from driving, and her social media being controlled. A child gave a police interview describing witnessing an alleged incident. Video recorded interviews (VRIs) were filed with the court but the judge had not watched them — there were no transcripts and the evidence was only referred to through quoted excerpts during the hearing. The judge dismissed the two most serious assault allegations, substituting them with mutual combat findings, and dismissed the coercive control allegations.
The High Court allowed the appeal on the two assault allegations. The mutual combat substitutions were found to be wrong in law — the original specific allegations had been effectively dismissed without being properly decided. The appeal on coercive control failed as the original judge's reasoning was found to be adequate. Both successful grounds were remitted for rehearing at first instance. The judge noted this was 'highly regrettable' given the length of proceedings and the further delay before the welfare stage could take place.
A mutual combat finding is not a finding in your favour. Your specific, serious allegation can be replaced with equal blame — and that is not the same as it being believed or decided. Filed evidence is not automatically considered. If the judge has not watched your video evidence, it may not be properly before the court. You must actively take the judge to it during submissions — flagged, timestamped, referred to explicitly. Appeals can succeed — but they take years. The children in this case had no contact with their father for a prolonged period during the proceedings. Coercive control requires more than a description of incidents. A documented, coherent pattern is what the court needs — not a list.
A McKenzie Friend could have helped ensure the VRIs were properly flagged and taken to the judge during submissions — not simply referred to in passing. They could have helped the mother understand what the mutual combat findings actually meant before she left the courtroom, and identify potential grounds for appeal from day one. On the coercive control allegations, a McKenzie Friend could have helped structure the evidence into a coherent documented pattern rather than a list of incidents.
Fact-finding hearing
A court hearing specifically to decide what happened — who did what to whom — before the court moves on to decide what arrangements are best for the children.
Scott Schedule
A document setting out each allegation in a table format, so both parties and the court can see clearly what is alleged, what is denied, and what the judge decides.
Mutual combat finding
When a judge decides that both parties were violent or aggressive, rather than making a specific finding on one party's allegation. This can mean the most serious allegation is never properly decided.
Balance of probabilities
The legal standard used in family court — something is found proven if it is more likely than not to have happened.
VRI (Video Recorded Interview)
A recorded police interview, often of a child witness. These must be actively placed before the judge — filing them is not enough.
ABE interview
Achieving Best Evidence interview — a structured police interview of a child or vulnerable witness, designed to obtain reliable evidence.
Coercive control
A pattern of behaviour that restricts a person's freedom and independence — such as controlling finances, isolating them from family, or monitoring their movements.
Permission to appeal
Before you can appeal a court decision, you must first get permission from a judge. The judge considers whether the appeal has a real prospect of success.
Remitted for rehearing
When an appeal court sends a case back to the original court to be heard again, usually because the first decision was flawed.
QLR (Qualified Legal Representative)
A lawyer appointed by the court to cross-examine a witness on behalf of a litigant in person, where the law prevents that person from doing so themselves — for example in domestic abuse cases.
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.