• "The establishment of contravention was done and dusted;at [15] the Mother initially accepted that yes the earlier post was in relation to the Father."
    Only in the context of it could be applied to the father but covered men in general. The fact that it covered the father is well, I don't see as an admission otherwise any woman going through family court who is having a bad day and says "all men suck" (and vice versa for men who say it about women) would be guilty of violating the denigration order.
    "Furthermore, at [65] the OP solicitor also warned her to stop the conduct and she intentionally continued. Moreover, at [55] the Mother then accepted that she did in fact engage in the conduct on each occasion. Intentionally engaging in conduct against current orders = contravention established."
    The father's solicitor has made a lot of untrue claims in correspondence and has been asked to stop doing so. Even the ICL, has been forced multiple times to admit the father's solicitor's claims about other issues are false (and that took a LOT to get the ICL to make those admissions as it meant the ICL was initially wrong too).
    Perhaps the mother, if given a chance to re-argue the case, needs to emphasize more the deceitful nature of the father's solicitor's claims in correspondence (in the other judgement of the case the judge handed down the same day, there is reference to exhibits of an email chain; where the father and his solicitor "accidentally" left off the final email from the ICL admitting the father's solicitor was "mistaken", in regards to the issue in debate that time). The mother was able to provide the last email the father's solicitor "accidentally" left out, showing the father was attempting to mislead the court, and while the judge seems to not have paid much attention to this deceit by the father and his solicitor, the important thing is the judge now knows the father engages in this tactic - unfortunately the contravention was heard a month or so before the interim custody hearing where more of the father's deceit came up.
    "In relation to the mothers rebuttal that she had a reasonable excuse due to a lack of understanding that the conduct was in breach of orders which she raised at [56], the judge remarked at [73]
    ‘Even if I am wrong in relation to the Mother’s lack of understanding of her obligations, the responsibility still rests upon the Mother to satisfy that such ought to result in her being excused for the contraventions’."
    This bit I don't get – in the hearing, I’d say at least an hour was spent debating what the order itself actually meant. With the Judge, the father's barrister (supported by the father's three solicitors) and the mother all involved in this discussion, debating as to what the order actually meant, how can the mother (with no legal background at all) have been expected to know the finer points of the meaning of the order when a learned judge and a learned barrister (and three solicitors) need to take so long debating as to what the order meant.
    "The mother defends the post as not being denigration for she is being truthful. The mother bears the responsibility of proving the truth about her claims; to show there was a casual link of the misunderstanding of her obligations (70) This is where things may of went a little pear shape."
    That's actually not what the mother argued (although the judge clearly thinks she did). Due to the large debate about the definition of "denigration" as applicable to family court orders, the mother suggested that the legal definition of "defamation" might be used. Not that it was her personal belief, but that it was one possible way to solve the Judge's issue of defining "denigration".
    As mentioned, the mother's actual arguments were the facebook posts don't identify the father, and a general "non-denigration" order doesn't apply when speaking privately to one's own supporters (as per the judge's other judgment that day) therefore there was no contravention. The debate is over whether the father is identified or not (which is the grounds for the appeal of the first two contraventions), and which judgement the judge put out that day is correct (and these two judgments I see as completely mutually exclusive and grounds for appealing the second two).

    FLAST

    Close