Moto and Moto

The applicant, Moto, sought to set aside a consent order made in 2019, alleging a circumstance under section 79A(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) that had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The respondent was also named Moto. The dispute concerned the finality of the 2019 consent orders.

The primary legal issue before Hannam J was whether the applicant had established a circumstance within the meaning of section 79A(1)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) that warranted setting aside the consent orders, and if so, whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred by reason of that circumstance.

Hannam J found that the applicant had successfully demonstrated the existence of a relevant circumstance under section 79A(1)(a) and that this circumstance had indeed led to a miscarriage of justice. The court was satisfied that the conditions for setting aside the consent orders had been met.

The court indicated that it was satisfied that the applicant had proved a circumstance under section 79A(1)(a) and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred by reason of this circumstance. The precise form of the final orders was to be subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.