By -

Key decisions

  • Cantrell & North and Anor [2020] FamCAFC 175
  • Hadwick & Scadden [2020] FamCAFC 168
  • Joplin & Parkins [2020] FamCA 403
  • Pandell & Walburg (No. 2) [2020] FCCA 1853


Consent orders obtained based on false information for the purpose of defeating creditors, in most circumstances, justifies an order varying or setting aside the order under s 79A of the Act

In Cantrell & North and Anor [2020] FamCAFC 175 (23 July 2020) the Full Court (Ryan, Aldridge & Austin JJ) dismissed an appeal where a couple had entered into consent orders and transferred the former matrimonial home to the wife; and where the Supreme Court of New South Wales declared that the transfer was void against a creditor of the husband pursuant to s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW),  setting the order aside pursuant to s 79A. 

[T]he creditor was owed $381,000 plus interest, primarily made up of costs orders made against the husband… In their application, the couple ‘wrongly and misleadingly answered “No”’ as to whether there were any creditors entitled to become a party to the case. 

The wife said that the Supreme Court erred in setting the orders aside as it had not considered whether substantially different orders would have been made, had there been proper disclosure.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more