HAGAR & MORENO

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Lapthorn considered applications by the Applicant to vary consent orders, set aside consent orders, and remove a caveat lodged by the Respondent. The Respondent sought summary dismissal of the Applicant's claims and sought indemnity costs.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant's applications to vary or set aside the consent orders should be summarily dismissed, the appropriate orders to be made regarding the removal of a caveat, and the question of costs, including the possibility of indemnity costs. The court was required to consider the principles governing the variation and setting aside of consent orders, particularly in light of the decisions in *Rice v Asplund*.

Judge Lapthorn applied the principles established in *Rice v Asplund* and *Harris v Harris*, which require a high degree of proof to set aside consent orders, demonstrating that the orders were not properly made or that there were significant circumstances that would make it unjust to uphold them. The court found that the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant setting aside the consent orders or to justify a variation. Consequently, the court determined that the Amended Initiating Application should be summarily dismissed.

The court ordered the summary dismissal of the Applicant's Amended Initiating Application. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs fixed at $10,403.72 within sixty days. Furthermore, the Applicant was directed to remove the caveat over the specified property at his sole cost within fourteen days, with provision made for a Registrar to sign necessary documents should the Applicant fail to comply.