Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd

In the case of Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd, the applicants sought to challenge a consent order made by the tribunal that resulted in the administrative termination of their compensation claim against the respondents. The claim was initially stayed when the respondents' company appointed liquidators, who indicated they did not intend to continue the application. Later, the applicants were assigned the rights to take action by the liquidators. The tribunal made a consent order in the belief that both parties had validly consented to the discontinuation application, but the applicants claimed they were unaware that their application had been terminated. The applicants argued that the consent order was invalid because they were not notified of it and that the order was not in the terms sought. They further contended that the consent order should be set aside due to fraud, as the respondents had knowingly initiated and filed the discontinuation application without their consent.

The legal issues before the court included whether the consent order was invalid because the applicants were not notified of it, whether the order was not in terms sought, and whether it was invalid due to fraud. The court examined the principles governing the variation and setting aside of consent judgments and orders, as well as the grounds for setting aside a judgment or order made irregularly, illegally, or against good faith. The applicants also sought to appeal the tribunal's decision to refuse their application to reopen the proceeding, arguing that the loss of their right to defend the counter-application amounted to substantial injustice.

The appeal tribunal found that the applicants had not shown a better than arguable case of error and that there was no substantial injustice warranting the waiver of time limits on the claim. The tribunal held that the applicants were not entitled to be notified of the consent order, and the order was not invalid because it was not in the terms sought. The tribunal concluded that the consent order was not obtained through fraud, as the applicants had not been misled by the respondents. The tribunal also refused the application for leave to appeal, finding that the applicants had not demonstrated a substantial question of law or that the decision involved an error of law. The tribunal upheld the consent order, and the applicants' appeal was dismissed.