MANCINI & ROSEN

In the matter of MANCINI & ROSEN, Neville J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a contravention application filed by the Mother. The dispute arose from the Father's alleged failure to ensure the children spent time with the Mother, as stipulated by court orders. Specifically, one of the two children, having firm views, resisted spending time with the Mother, and the Father contended that he could not "force" the child to comply. The Mother sought costs arising from the contravention.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Father had contravened the existing parenting orders without reasonable excuse. A secondary issue was whether the Mother should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis due to the contravention.

Neville J determined that contraventions of the orders had been made out and that the Father had not established a reasonable excuse for these contraventions. The court's reasoning was informed by the principles regarding the awarding of indemnity costs, as outlined in *Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd*. His Honour noted that while the ordinary rule is for costs to be awarded on a party and party basis, courts have a discretion to award costs on an indemnity basis where the justice of the case requires it. This discretion is exercised when there are special or unusual features, such as wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law, or proceedings commenced for an ulterior motive. The court found that the circumstances of this case warranted a departure from the usual rule.

The court ordered the Father to pay the Mother's costs of the contravention application.