Could this be an end to the wash-spin-repeat of financial remedies litigation? Nicholas Fairbank considers the decision in Ma v Roux
- Ma v Roux focuses on the legal issue of whether or not the court has the power to strike out an application to set aside financial remedy consent orders.
- The judgment concluded that applications to set aside a consent order shouldn’t be dismissed without a hearing taking place.
- This has wide-reaching implications for practitioners and means the court can now weed out unmeritorious applications at an early stage.
Picture yourself having emerged from your divorce with a final financial remedies order to hold and to cherish. It was not a pleasant experience, even if you ended up agreeing the order, and whatever the outcome, you can’t help feeling you’ve rather been taken to the cleaners.
Imagine now that some time later, your embittered ex makes an application to set aside that order, under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), r 9.9A. No longer need they
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
