Hearn and Woolcott

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Hearn (the wife) for leave to review out of time Consent Orders made by a Registrar on 10 August 2012. The application was opposed by Mr Woolcott (the husband). The dispute concerned the wife's ability to challenge property settlement orders made by consent, which she had applied to review approximately eight months after they were finalised.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the wife leave to review the Registrar's exercise of power out of time, and if so, whether the Consent Orders should be set aside. This involved determining whether the interests of justice outweighed the prejudice to the husband, particularly given that neither party had received independent legal advice prior to consenting to the orders. The Court also considered the principles governing the exercise of delegated power by Registrars and the importance of judicial supervision and the right to review.

Rees J applied the principles established in cases such as *Gallo v Dawson* and *Tormsen & Tormsen*, which dictate that the discretion to extend time is for the sole purpose of enabling the court to do justice between the parties. This requires weighing the respondent's prima facie right to the benefit of a judgment against the desirability of finality in litigation. The Court found that the wife's explanation for the delay was adequately explained, noting her lack of legal advice and her belief that the Consent Orders were solely for stamp duty exemption. The Court was not satisfied that the Consent Orders were just and equitable, particularly given the absence of financial disclosure and legal advice, and that the orders were inexplicable on their face. The Court concluded that the interests of justice outweighed the prejudice to the husband.

The Court ordered that the wife be granted leave to review out of time the Registrar’s exercise of power in making the Consent Orders, and that the Orders made on 10 August 2012 be vacated.