Plaintiff v Defendants [2026] VSC 84 | Case summary

Supreme Court of Victoria|2026-03-04|Before: Irving AsJ

For the reasons given above, I have decided to grant Mr De Santana's application for summary judgment. It follows that Mr Piggott's proceeding must be dismissed.
My preliminary view on the question of costs, subject to any submissions the parties may wish to make, is that costs should follow the event, meaning that Mr Piggott should pay Mr De Santana's costs of the proceeding on a standard basis. I request the parties confer on the question of the costs of the proceeding. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 7 days of the date of this judgment, the proceeding will be relisted for submissions on the issue of costs.

[4] See Piggott v Walker-Davidson [2025] VSC 304.

[5] 'Affected family member' or AFM is defined in s 4 of the FVPA to include 'a person the subject of an application for a family violence intervention order to protect the person or the person's property'.

[15] See also Annesley v Westpac Banking Corporation [2016] VSC 323, [70].

[17] [2022] VSC 217, [29], quoting Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, 393 (Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ) and R v Smith [1995] VicRp 2; [1995] 1 VR 10, 15 (Brooking J).

[23] Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 35-6 (Brennan J), cited in Enfield City Corporation v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135, 152-3 [43] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).

[24] Craig v The State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 175-6 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

Violence Protection Act 2008

Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025

Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2018

Violence Protection Act 2008

Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025

Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2018

Plaintiff v Defendants

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (8)