Discussion before signing property contract papers

Shady Consent Orders Set Aside by Court

Adam West ||

When it comes to any proceedings before the Family Court a failure to disclose – whether it be between the parties or in relation to third parties – can lead to any orders being set aside.

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court is a timely reminder that when parties wish to enter into Consent Orders, honesty is the best policy, and Consent Orders made chiefly for the purposes of defeating creditors, can be set aside by the Court.

In a recent case of Cantrell v North, a couple entered into Consent Orders which provided that the former matrimonial home be transferred to the wife. However, the parties had not disclosed the fact that there was a creditor who was owed some $381,000.00, perhaps hoping to cheat the creditor by having the property transferred to the wife. The parties ought to have disclosed the interest of the creditor because in such cases, the Court must know whether there are any creditors who are entitled to become a party to a case before approving and making any orders, including Consent Orders, which may affect such creditors.

After the parties had approved Consent Orders, and thought they were safe, the creditor made an application to the Supreme Court, obtaining an order declaring that the transfer of the matrimonial home pursuant to the Consent Orders, was void. The couple appealed that decision in the Full Court and argued that the Supreme Court had not considered whether substantially different orders would have been made, had the husband and wife made proper disclosure. However, the Full Court of the Family Court did not accept this argument and said that in circumstances where there had been a failure to disclose to the Court the existence of a significant creditor who was entitled to join the proceedings, the Court was not obliged to consider what final property orders would have been made had there been proper disclosure.

It was the Court’s view that any Consent Orders obtained on the basis of false information, was enough of a circumstance to justify an order varying or setting aside those Consent Orders, and  the appeal against the Supreme Court’s orders was dismissed.

If you wish to discuss any aspect of this article, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact a member of Coleman Greig’s Family Law team, who would be more than happy to assist you today.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice. For more details, please read our full disclaimer.

Share:

Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.

Categories
Archives
Author

More posts

A father and daughter look at a tablet together
Changing a child’s name after separation

Separation can bring with it a range of emotions and the dispute between separating parents can be far and wide, including whether the surname of a child should be retained or changed.

Photo of a woman handing a child a bag
When child support doesn’t cover the costs – What you can do

In Australia, child support is governed by the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). It is processed through Services Australia (Child Support) where a formulaic approach is taken to determine the amount of child support payable by one parent to the other.

A close up of a gavel
With or without you – Undefended hearings in Family Law

If a party has commenced family law proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (whether in relation to parenting or property matters) and the Respondent does not participate, the matter can, and eventually will, proceed without them.

Two horses in a paddock
Land tax exemption – Not as simple as you would think!

Land tax is an area that Revenue NSW is regularly targeting in their audits and investigations. In our Tax & Super practice, we have advised and worked with a number of clients on two common land tax exemptions – the principal place of residence exemption and the primary production exemption.

A young man and older man sit talking
The danger of oral agreements

A recent judgement delivered by the New South Wales District Court in Puntoriero v Higgins [2025] NSWDC 244 reminds us of the importance of documenting commercial transactions to prevent lengthy and costly litigation.

© 2025 Coleman Greig Lawyers  |  Sitemap  |  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. ABN 73 125 176 230