Galeford and Galeford (No. 2)

In *Galeford and Galeford (No. 2)*, the wife sought to set aside consent orders and a financial agreement made on 30 April 2004, pursuant to section 79A(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), alleging a miscarriage of justice. The wife also sought to set aside the financial agreement under sections 90K and/or 90KA of the Act. The grounds relied upon for the miscarriage of justice claim, excluding duress, included suppression of evidence, failure to disclose relevant information, the giving of false evidence, fraud, and "any other circumstance" arising from an alleged failure to provide an interpreter, thereby vitiating her consent.

The Court was required to determine whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred, specifically whether the husband had suppressed evidence regarding offers to purchase his business or the extent of financial support provided to Ms S and her child. The Court also needed to consider whether the wife's alleged lack of understanding of the consent orders and financial agreement, due to a purported need for an interpreter, constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Court's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility of witnesses, particularly Ms S and the wife, against the evidence provided by the husband and the wife's senior counsel, Mr Geddes QC.

Justice Rose found that the wife had failed to establish a miscarriage of justice on any of the grounds relied upon. The Court did not accept Ms S's evidence regarding the husband's alleged suppression of offers to purchase his business or the extent of financial support provided to her and her child, preferring the husband's evidence. Similarly, the Court found that the wife had not established a lack of understanding of the consent orders or financial agreement due to a need for an interpreter. The Court accepted the evidence of Mr Geddes QC, finding that the wife had been adequately informed and understood the proceedings and the documents she signed, noting her active participation in discussions and her prior experience with English in business and legal contexts, including her role as an interpreter for an acquaintance. The Court concluded that the wife had not demonstrated that the consent orders were obtained contrary to the justice of the case.

Consequently, the wife's application to set aside the consent orders and financial agreement was dismissed. Directions were made for written submissions regarding a separate application filed by the wife on 14 December 2006, concerning outstanding payments and compliance with the consent orders.