An overview of family law cases concerning the setting aside of consent orders
Setting aside a consent order, whatever the grounds, is easier said than done.
The court’s preoccupation with finality often means that, even when it is apparent there has been non-disclosure or a change in circumstances, a consent order will not automatically be set aside.
The logic behind this is understandable; there would be no finality if it were easy for parties to re-open and change consent orders once made. Similarly, the court are reluctant to made decisions which could be seized upon others and result in a floodgate of litigation.
During this session the developments surrounding the distribution of family assets, and setting aside consent orders on account of material non-disclosure, will be considered through the examination of the following case law:
Roocroft v. Ball (PR of Carol Ainscow, Deceased) 
AB v CD 2016
Hart v. Hart 
VS v RE 
Al – Baker v. Al- Baker 
Veluppillai v. Veluppillai and Others 
Sharland v. Sharland 
Gohil v. Gohil 
Iqbal v. Iqbal 
Critchell v. Critchell 
Experienced family law lecturer Safda Mahmood will consider the circumstances in which setting aside consent orders because of non-disclosure may arise and will examine the consequences of such behaviour, including costs.
In addition, the likelihood of a consent order being set aside following a change in one or both parties’ situation will also be explored.
Do you want to continue your session?