Delaney and Delaney and Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Burchardt considered an application by the husband to vary consent orders made in May 2019, which the wife strongly opposed. The husband's application was dismissed, with the court finding it sought a substantive variation of the earlier compromise rather than merely machinery orders. The wife's subsequent application was also dismissed as an abuse of process, as it appeared to seek a re-litigation of the earlier proceedings. However, an application by the wife's former solicitor to be joined as a party was granted.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the husband's application constituted an attempt to substantively alter the existing consent orders, thereby exceeding the court's jurisdiction as *functus officio*, and whether the wife's subsequent application amounted to an abuse of process by seeking to re-litigate matters already determined. The court also had to consider the joinder of the wife's former solicitor as a party.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that the husband's application sought to fundamentally change the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a property, which was a core element of the May 2019 compromise. The court held that it was *functus officio* in relation to varying the substantive terms of those orders. The wife's application was deemed an abuse of process because it sought to revisit the same issues already resolved by the consent orders.

The court made several orders, including joining A Pty Ltd as a second respondent and amending Order 11(c) of the May 2019 orders concerning the distribution of sale proceeds from C Street. These amendments specified the order of payments, including discharging a mortgage, paying the husband a specific sum with interest, holding a portion on trust pending resolution of a County Court proceeding, and distributing a percentage of net proceeds over a certain amount to the husband, with the balance to the wife. The court also granted A Pty Ltd leave to provide an affidavit to the County Court and vacated one contravention application while listing another.