Hirschfield and Hirschfield

In *Hirschfield and Hirschfield*, Monteith J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband to set aside final orders made on 16 August 2006, pursuant to section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The husband alleged that the orders should be set aside due to the wife's non-disclosure of assets and that he had not signed the consent orders. The wife sought to uphold the original orders and sought costs on an indemnity basis.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband had established grounds under section 79A to set aside the final orders, specifically concerning allegations of non-disclosure and duress in signing the consent orders. The court was also required to determine the appropriate basis for awarding costs to the wife, considering the conduct of the parties and the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975*, including sections 117 and 117AB.

Monteith J dismissed the husband's application to set aside the orders. The court found the husband's evidence regarding non-disclosure to be farcical and not credible, accepting the wife's evidence and explanations. The court also rejected the husband's claims of duress and that he had not signed the consent orders, finding his evidence to be untruthful and his credibility to be in tatters. The court relied on the evidence of the husband's former legal representatives, who testified that the issues raised by the husband were fully explored during settlement negotiations and that the husband was content with the settlement. Consequently, the court found no miscarriage of justice to warrant setting aside the orders.

In light of the husband's unsuccessful application and his conduct throughout the proceedings, including making false allegations and resisting enforcement of previous orders, Monteith J ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs on an indemnity basis. The court fixed these costs at $82,419.92, noting that the husband had received a significantly larger portion of the asset pool in the original property settlement and the wife was in difficult financial circumstances. The court also made ancillary orders regarding the release of documents and the distribution of funds held on trust.