Turner v O'Bryan-Turner (No 4)

In Turner v O'Bryan-Turner (No 4), the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the respondent, O'Bryan-Turner, to amend, vary and set aside a consent order made by consent between the parties. The order in question involved a property settlement, and the application was made under the slip rule, which allows for corrections of obvious errors or omissions in judgments, orders or other documents of the court. The court was required to determine whether the application met the criteria for amendment under the slip rule and whether it was in the interests of justice to allow the amendment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the application was made within a reasonable time and whether the proposed amendment was an obvious error or omission. The court noted that while there was a delay in bringing the application, the delay was not in itself a bar to relief if the other criteria were met. The court also considered whether the proposed amendment was an obvious error or omission, which would entitle the applicant to relief under the slip rule. In this case, the court found that the proposed amendment was not an obvious error or omission, but rather a matter of interpretation of the original order.

The court held that the application was not made within a reasonable time and that the proposed amendment was not an obvious error or omission. The court noted that the delay in bringing the application was significant and that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also found that the proposed amendment was a matter of interpretation rather than an obvious error or omission. The court held that the application was not in the interests of justice and dismissed the application.

The court did not make any orders, as the application was dismissed. The court noted that the delay in bringing the application and the lack of an obvious error or omission meant that the application was not in the interests of justice. The court held that the application should not be granted and that the consent order should remain in place.