PABST & PABST (No.2)

The husband sought to set aside consent orders made in 2017 pursuant to section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The husband alleged that the consent orders were procured by fraud, either by the parties' accountant or by the wife or her agents. He further contended that the orders formed part of a scheme to evade tax, fomented by the accountant, and that the orders should be vitiated for other reasons. The husband also sought to retract sworn admissions that he had signed the consent orders.

The central legal issues before Judge Burchardt were whether the consent orders made in 2017 were vitiated by fraud or other improper conduct, and whether the husband's application to set them aside was meritorious. This required the court to consider the evidence presented regarding the alleged fraudulent conduct of the wife and the accountant, and the husband's retraction of his prior admissions.

Judge Burchardt completely rejected all suggestions of fraud and/or other improper conduct by the wife and/or the accountant. The court found the husband's section 79A claim to be devoid of merit, implicitly upholding the validity of the original consent orders and the integrity of the process by which they were made.

The application was dismissed.