header-logo header-logo

Setting aside

01 March 2013 / Margaret Hatwood
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail
istock_000004372512medium_1

In a special NLJ two-part series Margaret Hatwood discusses the increasing trend of parties asking for consent orders to be set aside

A consent order can only be set aside in limited circumstances. These are: non-disclosure; fraud or misrepresentation; supervening events which invalidate the whole basis of the order; and undue influence.

There are two ways of contesting a consent order: (i) an application for leave to appeal out of time; or (ii) an application to set aside the order. The latter course of action is more appropriate in cases of non-disclosure or fraud. However, in Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure) (1983) 4 FLR 102, CA Ormrod LJ said that while applications to set aside could be made by either a new action or an appeal to a higher court, there was much convenience in an application to the judge who made the original order who could determine the application and then make a new order if appropriate.

Non-disclosure

In Boker-Ingram v Boker-Ingram [2008] EWHC 1167, 10 days after a consent order

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll