Hullet & Benton

In the matter of *Hullet & Benton*, the applicant, Mr Benton as Trustee for the deceased estate of Mr D Benton (the Executor), sought a review of a Registrar's decision to dismiss an Application for Consent Orders. The dispute arose after the wife, Ms Hullet, withdrew her consent to the agreed property settlement orders following the death of her husband, Mr D Benton. The Registrar had dismissed the Application for Consent Orders, leading to the Executor's subsequent application to the Court.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the withdrawal of consent by one party to an Application for Consent Orders automatically discontinued the proceedings, and whether procedural orders should have been made following the husband's death pursuant to rule 6.15 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). Additionally, the Court considered the propriety of substituting the legal personal representative of a deceased party into property proceedings under section 79(8) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Macmillan J reasoned that the withdrawal of consent by one party did not necessarily discontinue the other party's case, particularly in the context of property settlement proceedings under the Family Law Act. The Court found that it was appropriate to substitute the Executor of the husband's estate as the legal representative for the deceased husband, thereby allowing the property proceedings to continue. The Court also determined that the Registrar's dismissal of the Application for Consent Orders was premature and should be discharged.

Consequently, the Court ordered the discharge of the Registrar's orders dismissing the Application for Consent Orders. Mr Benton, as Executor of the deceased husband's estate, was substituted as the legal representative for the respondent husband. Directions were given for the parties to file and serve initiating applications, affidavits, and financial statements, and the question of costs was reserved for determination in Chambers.