May and Longley and Anor (No.2)

In *May and Longley and Anor (No.2)*, the applicant paternal grandmother filed a Contravention Application alleging two contraventions of consent orders made on 13 August 2008, which significantly limited her contact with her grandchild, [X]. The application was heard by Judge Burchardt.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents had contravened the existing orders and, if so, to consider the appropriate costs order. Specifically, the court had to assess two alleged contraventions: one concerning the availability of [X] for a telephone call on Easter Sunday, and another occurring approximately two and a half years prior to the filing of the application.

Judge Burchardt dismissed the first contravention allegation summarily, noting that the alleged date of contravention was Easter Saturday, not Easter Sunday as stipulated in the order. The judge considered contravention applications to be quasi-criminal in nature and not amenable to amendment. The second contravention allegation was dismissed as stale, with the court opining that such matters should not be pursued so long after the event. The court also noted that the material filed by the second respondent appeared convincing and likely to establish a reasonable excuse. The court exercised its power under section 70NCB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to make a costs order.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis, fixed at $15,720.50.