Nagel & Clay

In the matter of *Nagel & Clay*, heard by Harper J, the parties, Mr Nagel (applicant) and Ms Clay (respondent), brought before the court a dispute concerning the interpretation of final parenting orders made by consent. The core of the disagreement lay in the application of a fortnightly cycle for the children's time with the father, which was suspended during school holidays but was understood by the parties to continue to apply notionally. This led to differing views on which week of the fortnightly cycle applied at the commencement of Term 2, 2021, and thereafter.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was an ambiguity or inconsistency in the final consent orders regarding the children's time with the father, and consequently, whether the "slip rule" under rule 17.02 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) was applicable to rectify any such issues. The court was required to determine the correct construction of the orders to resolve the parties' divergent interpretations.

Harper J concluded that no relevant ambiguity or inconsistency existed in the final orders that would necessitate the application of the slip rule. The court's preliminary view was that the form of order proposed by the father was appropriate, which would result in the dismissal of the mother's proposed order. However, the court noted that the mother had also sought to vary the final orders, the basis for which was not clear from her pleadings. Therefore, before making final orders, the court directed that the matter be listed for mention, with instructions for the parties to confer and exchange proposed minutes of orders.