Rowe v Emmanuel COLLEGE (No.3)

Rowe v Emmanuel College (No.3) concerned a dispute between the applicant, Ms Rowe, and the respondent, Emmanuel College. The applicant sought to have certain orders made by the court in previous proceedings set aside. The matter came before Judge Jarrett in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established grounds to set aside the consent orders previously made. This involved considering the principles governing the setting aside of consent orders, particularly in circumstances where one party alleges they did not fully understand the nature or effect of the orders they consented to. The court also had to determine if the applicant's asserted lack of understanding constituted a sufficient basis to depart from the usual finality afforded to consent orders.

Judge Jarrett applied the well-established principle that consent orders are generally treated as having the character of a contract and an order of the court, and are not lightly set aside. His Honour considered the evidence presented by the applicant regarding her alleged lack of understanding at the time the consent orders were made. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the court found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the consent orders should be set aside. The court was not satisfied that the applicant lacked a proper understanding of the orders or that there were any other compelling reasons to depart from the finality of the consent orders.

The application to set aside the consent orders was dismissed.