Gitane & Velacruz

Gitane & Velacruz involved a dispute between the parties regarding the variation of consent orders made under the Family Law Act. The appeal was heard in the Family Court of Australia, focusing on the interpretation and application of Section 79A. The primary issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding an implied consent to vary the existing consent orders, and if so, whether the trial judge was obligated to strictly adhere to the implied agreement when making new orders. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge was required to set aside the original consent orders before readjusting the parties’ property entitlements.

The court addressed the trial judge's approach to the exercise of discretion under Section 79A. It found that the trial judge was not bound to vary the consent orders in strict accordance with the implied agreement of the parties. The court further held that the trial judge did not need to set aside the consent orders before re-adjusting the parties' property entitlements. The court discussed the scope of discretion available under Section 79A(1) and 79A(1A), concluding that the trial judge did not err in the exercise of his discretion. The court found that the trial judge’s overall approach, though not strictly adhering to the implied agreement, achieved the correct result and dismissed the appeal.

The court also set a timetable for the filing of written submissions in respect of the costs incurred by the parties in relation to the appeal. The orders included provisions for each party to file submissions within specific timeframes and for the other party to respond accordingly. The court mandated that each party endorse the cover sheet with the date of service of submissions on the other party.