Connor v Veitch

In Connor v Veitch, the Court of Appeal of Western Australia was tasked with determining whether to enter and extract orders in accordance with a consent notice dated 30 November 2023, which had been signed by the solicitors of both parties following a mediation. The appellant, Daniel Ignatius Connor, had originally filed an appeal against a District Court judgment that awarded the respondent, Julia Ann Veitch, $4,267.80 in damages for lost opportunity due to the appellant's negligence. The consent notice proposed the dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal, with no order as to costs and the vacating of existing costs orders. However, shortly after the consent notice was filed, Ms Veitch sought to withdraw her consent, citing stress, confusion, and a sense of being coerced during the mediation.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the court had discretion to refuse to enter and extract orders in accordance with the consent notice, given that it had already been approved by a single judge, and whether Ms Veitch's belated withdrawal of consent could be respected. The court examined the provisions of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), which permit the making of consent orders to efficiently resolve disputes. The court found that the consent notice was signed by Ms Veitch's solicitor with express actual authority and that there was no evidence of misapprehension, mistake, or acting beyond authority. Furthermore, Ms Veitch did not challenge the lawfulness of the compromise itself, instead appealing to notions of justice and fairness.

The court held that once a party has expressly authorised a compromise, the court lacks the discretion to refuse to enforce it unless there is a legal basis to render the compromise void or voidable. The court emphasised the public policy in favour of encouraging settlement of litigation and the importance of respecting compromises made following mediation. The court concluded that refusing to enter and extract orders in accordance with the consent notice would not be consistent with the due administration of justice and would undermine the effectiveness of mediation as a dispute resolution process. Therefore, the court ordered that the orders be entered and extracted in terms of the consent notice dated 30 November 2023.