BRADBURY & LANDER

In the matter of *Bradbury & Lander*, Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application alleging contravention of parenting orders. The dispute centred on whether the respondent had intentionally contravened an order restraining a party from "insulting or denigrating the other parent".

The court was required to determine the meaning of "intentionally" in the context of a contravention application under Division 13A of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether it was sufficient that the conduct contravening the order was engaged in intentionally, or if it was necessary for the respondent to know that their conduct constituted a contravention. The court also had to distinguish between finding a contravention and finding a reasonable excuse for a contravention, including whether a failure to understand obligations could constitute a reasonable excuse.

Gill J reasoned that for a contravention to be intentional, it is sufficient that the party intentionally engaged in the conduct that contravened the order, without necessarily knowing that the conduct constituted a contravention. The court found that the respondent had contravened Order 6 of the parenting orders on multiple occasions. The court adjourned the proceedings to determine the consequences of these contraventions and any costs application, directing both parties to file further material relevant to these matters.