Protection order — occupation and ancillary furniture order — domestic relationship — domestic abuse — psychological abuse — Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 21 & 85 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 17 & 18 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 158 & 170 — Surrey v Surrey [2010] 2 NZLR 581 — Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1. The parties were married and had since separated. The applicant sought a final protection order and an occupation and ancillary furniture order. The applications were defended by the respondent. A temporary protection order was obtained after the respondent broke into their joint property after agreeing not to do so. The parties were involved in proceedings such as a discontinuance from a previous temporary protection order, which the applicant no longer pursued as she thought it was unnecessary, and a relationship property settlement. There were three requirements for a protection order: the parties needed to be in a domestic relationship, domestic violence was used, and the order was necessary to protect the applicant. The Court was satisfied the parties were in a relationship. The respondent denied the domestic abuse allegations, but admitted that he had kicked in a shed door and sworn at the applicant. The applicant claimed emotional and psychological abuse, such as being followed by cars, being yelled at by a man at 4am indicating she needed to sign separation papers, and having the nuts on her car tires loosened. It was established the respondent did break padlocks on the joint property's driveway gate, and took vehicles he was "holding custody of". The Court did not doubt that the incidents happened to the applicant, but there was no evidence that the respondent was connected to the incidents. The respondent removed the applicant as a director from a company and stopped her wages after the applicant took her share from their joint account and froze some accounts. The Court was satisfied that the respondent was domestically violent. However, fear of future violence was not established as the only proven abuse incidents were property related. The temporary protection order was discharged. An occupation order was granted for the applicant's protection, due to the respondent's habit of entering the property and causing damage. Judgment Date: 21 December 2017. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *