Klearchos & Klearchos

In *Klearchos & Klearchos*, the wife sought to set aside property consent orders made in 2017 pursuant to section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The wife alleged that the husband had failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure, leading her to agree to orders that were substantially different from what she would have received had full disclosure been made. The husband sought to have the wife's application permanently stayed or summarily dismissed.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the wife's application had reasonable prospects of success, whether there was a serious question to be tried, and whether the alleged suppression of evidence or failure to disclose information amounted to a miscarriage of justice, thereby justifying the setting aside of the consent orders. The Court was required to determine if the wife's application constituted an abuse of process.

Altobelli J reasoned that for an application under section 79A to succeed, the Court must be satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The Court applied the principles from *Barker & Barker* and *Livesey v Jenkins*, which establish that it is not sufficient to merely demonstrate a failure to disclose; the non-disclosure must have led to the Court making an order substantially different from what it would have made had full disclosure occurred. The Court found no evidence that the husband had suppressed evidence or failed to provide full disclosure, nor that any alleged non-disclosure led to a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the wife's amended initiating application seeking to set aside the consent orders. The Court also adjourned the wife's application seeking a review of a subsequent order and dismissed all other extant interim applications. The parties were given a period to make any applications for costs.