KING & FALKINGHAM

In *King & Falkingham*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application to set aside consent orders made in 2018 concerning property settlement and parenting arrangements. The applicant sought to vary these orders on the grounds that they were not just and equitable at the time they were made, and that the parenting orders were not in the best interests of the children.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the consent orders, particularly those relating to property, were just and equitable at the time of their making, and whether the parenting orders adequately reflected the best interests of the children. The Court also had to consider the principles governing the setting aside of consent orders in family law proceedings.

Macmillan J applied the principles established in *Harris v Harris* and *Harris v Harris* (No 2), which confirm that consent orders in family law are binding unless set aside. The Court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the property orders were not just and equitable at the time they were made, nor had they established that the parenting orders were not in the best interests of the children. The evidence presented did not support a finding of fraud, duress, undue influence, or material mistake, which are typically required to set aside such orders.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application to set aside the consent orders.