LACEFIELD & ALGRIM

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Brown considered applications by both the applicant husband and the respondent wife concerning final de facto property orders made by consent in August 2019. The wife sought to vary the existing orders to permit the sale of certain chattels still located on her property, which the husband had failed to collect as per the original agreement. Conversely, the husband sought to set aside the consent orders, alleging he had not truly consented as he was unable to read the documents and his legal representative had not read them aloud to him.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the husband's allegations constituted a miscarriage of justice sufficient to warrant setting aside the consent orders. Secondly, the court had to consider the wife's application to lift an injunction preventing her from disposing of the chattels and to make consequential orders regarding their sale and the transfer of certain vehicles and a loan interest to her. The question of indemnity costs was also before the court.

Judge Brown reasoned that the husband's claim of not consenting due to his inability to read the orders, without more, did not meet the threshold for setting aside consent orders, particularly given the passage of time and the wife's subsequent actions based on those orders. The court found that the husband had not established a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court ordered that the injunction restraining the wife from disposing of the chattels be lifted, allowing her to sell them and account for the proceeds, with the husband liable for any shortfall. The court also ordered the Registrar to execute transfer documents for several vehicles and a deed of assignment for a loan interest to the wife, as contemplated by the original orders. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $8,000 in costs.