Morton and Morton (No. 2)

In *Morton and Morton (No. 2)*, the wife sought to vary a property settlement order made by consent in 2005. The application was heard by Watt J in the Family Court of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned the wife's assertion that she had been induced to enter into the original consent orders by misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of the husband, specifically in relation to the valuation of certain assets.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife had established a sufficient basis to set aside the original consent orders on the grounds of misleading and deceptive conduct. This required the court to consider the nature of consent orders in family law proceedings and the threshold for their variation or setting aside, particularly when allegations of fraud or misrepresentation are raised. The court also had to assess whether the wife's evidence sufficiently demonstrated that she relied on the alleged misleading conduct to her detriment when agreeing to the original settlement.

Watt J dismissed the wife's application. The reasoning focused on the high bar required to displace consent orders, which are generally treated as final and binding. The court found that the wife had not adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that the husband had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, nor that she had relied upon such conduct to her detriment when entering into the consent orders. The wife's application was therefore unsuccessful.