SARBER & TACOMA

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge McNab considered an application by SARBER to set aside final property orders. SARBER alleged that the final orders were not made by consent and that their entry constituted a miscarriage of justice. The central dispute revolved around whether the Court possessed the jurisdiction to make the orders in the first place.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine whether the final orders had been validly made by consent. This required an examination of the circumstances surrounding the purported agreement and entry of the orders, and whether any vitiating factors, such as a lack of true consent or a fundamental error, had occurred. Consequently, the Court had to ascertain if it retained jurisdiction to entertain SARBER's application to set aside those orders.

Judge McNab dismissed SARBER's application. The Court found that the evidence did not support the assertion that the orders were not made by consent, nor that their entry constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to make the orders as they were entered. The Court then reserved judgment on the question of costs, directing the parties to file written submissions regarding quantum and any response by specific dates.