Forster and Forster

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Forster (the wife) sought to set aside previous orders and then obtain property settlement orders, which Mr Forster (the husband) opposed. The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application to amend her initiating application and to set aside certain prior orders. The husband opposed these applications.

The court was asked to consider the wife's application to amend her initiating application to include an additional order from 1 October 2010 as voidable, and to strike out certain paragraphs of her application. The central legal issue was whether the court had the power to set aside previously made orders that had been found to be voidable, and whether the wife's application was the appropriate procedural mechanism for achieving this. The husband contended that such orders could only be set aside through an appeal process or an application made pursuant to section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Strickland, applying the principles established in *Taylor & Taylor* and other High Court decisions, affirmed the court's inherent jurisdiction to set aside voidable orders. His Honour found that the orders in question were indeed voidable, as determined in previous reasons for judgment. Consequently, the court allowed the wife's application to amend her initiating application to include the additional voidable order and struck out the specified paragraphs. The court also noted that the husband's opposition to striking out paragraph 2 of the wife's application was unfounded, as judgments themselves are not set aside, but rather the orders made. The balance of the initiating application and the husband's response, save for his request for dismissal, were referred to a Registrar for listing for trial.