McGrath and McGrath and Ors

In the matter of *McGrath and McGrath and Ors*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the construction and enforcement of consent orders made on 1 September 2017. The dispute arose from an ambiguity within the consent order, leading to differing interpretations by the parties regarding their respective liabilities for outstanding taxation liabilities.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing consent order, specifically paragraph 16(b), was ambiguous and, if so, how it should be construed and varied to reflect the parties' intentions. A secondary issue, though not ultimately determined in the provided text, concerned the potential for wasted costs orders against legal practitioners, subject to procedural fairness.

Bennett J determined that the original consent order was indeed ambiguous. The court reasoned that to give effect to the parties' agreement, the order needed to be clarified. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation and the court's power to vary consent orders where ambiguity leads to an unintended or unworkable outcome. The court's reasoning focused on ensuring the practical implementation of the parties' agreed division of taxation liabilities.

Consequently, the court ordered that paragraph 16(b) of the consent order be set aside and replaced with new wording. This variation stipulated that the parties were to ensure payment of any outstanding taxation liability as described in their Notices of Assessment for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, as at 1 September 2017, in the proportions of 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife. The issue of costs was adjourned, and the parties' other applications were dismissed.