Sullivan (a pseudonym) v Sullivan [2026] VCC 419 | Case summary

County Court of Victoria|2026-04-10

This is the respondent's application for the award of costs against the appellant following an abandonment of appeal.
Briefly, the parties were in a relationship for approximately 30 years. The relationship broke down and a family violence intervention order ('FVIO') was made against the appellant, Mr Sullivan,[1] on 7 August 2025. The appellant failed to appear in Court on that day. On 25 September 2025, the appellant made an application to revoke the FVIO. The application was denied by her Honour Magistrate Bolger and the appellant appealed the decision on that day.
The appellant filed a notice of abandonment of appeal with this Court on 24 February 2026.
The respondent applies to this Court for an award of costs arising from the abandonment of appeal. While Ms Sullivan[2] is self-represented, she claims costs for the time taken away from her employment to prepare for and attend the proceedings.
The issue of costs is determined by s154 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. That section specifies that each party to a proceeding for a FVIO must bear their own costs of the proceeding, unless the court decides that exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise or if the making of an application under the Act was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith.
Section 154 reads as follows:

154 Costs > > (1) Each party to a proceeding for a family violence intervention order under this Act or a proceeding for the variation, extension or revocation of a recognised DVO must bear the party's own costs of the proceeding.

(a) the court may make an order about costs if the court decides that exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise in a particular case; or

(b) if the court is satisfied in a particular case that the making of any application under this Act was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith, the court may award costs against the applicant.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the mere fact that an application is made and then withdrawn is not exceptional and does not amount in itself to a vexatious or frivolous application or an application made in bad faith.

I do not find that exceptional circumstances arise here under s154(3)(a). There is nothing exceptional about an appellant abandoning their appeal. This is made clear by s154(4). It is quite often the case that a FVIO proceeding in this Court does not reach final determination by virtue of abandonment by the appellant.
Further, I do not find that Mr Sullivan's application to revoke the FVIO was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith under s154(3)(b). Mr Sullivan made the application in an attempt to explain his absence from the hearing on 7 August 2025. While his application was denied, it cannot be said to be vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith.
For these reasons, I deny the respondent's application for costs against the appellant. Each party is to bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Sullivan (a pseudonym) v Sullivan

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties