HORRIGAN & JENNINGS

In the matter of Horrigan & Jennings, the applicant, Ms Horrigan, sought to have previously made consent orders set aside on jurisdictional grounds, and subsequently, to vary those orders. The respondent, Mr Jennings, opposed the setting aside of the consent orders and sought to defeat any further financial claims. The proceedings were before Cleary J.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it had jurisdiction to set aside the consent orders, and if so, whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the application for variation of those orders. The court was also required to determine the appropriate costs orders in light of the mixed success of the parties.

Cleary J determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to make the original consent orders at the time they were made. Consequently, the applicant was successful in having those orders set aside, but this success meant she could not pursue the variation of orders that no longer had a jurisdictional basis. The respondent was unsuccessful in opposing the dismissal of the application to set aside the consent orders, but was successful in preventing any further financial claims against him due to the lack of jurisdiction for the variation application. In these unusual circumstances, the court applied the general principle that each party should bear their own costs, dismissing the applications for costs.

The court ordered that the Application in a Case filed 4 November 2015 and the Response to an Application in a Case filed 8 December 2015 be dismissed. Furthermore, each party was granted leave to re-list their respective applications and responses within 14 days of the orders. If no such application to re-list was made, then a list of specified initiating applications and responses, dating from 2010 to 2015, would be dismissed without further notice.