header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 March 2013 / Margaret Hatwood
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail

Setting aside

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll