Consent Order in UK Law

In such a case the court will only interfere with such an order on the same grounds as it would with any other contract. The other meaning is this: The words "by consent" may mean "the parties hereto not objecting". In such a case there is no real contract between the parties. The order can be altered or varied by the court in the same circumstances as any other order that is made by the court without the consent of the parties.

In giving the advice of the Judicial Committee, Lord Diplock, at page 560, said this:—"Financial arrangements "that are agreed upon between the parties for the purpose of receiving "the approval and being made the subject of a consent order by the "court, once they have been made the subject of a court order no longer "depend upon the agreement of the parties as the source from which their "legal effect is derived.

There are two principles which inform the modern legislation. One is the public interest that spouses, to the extent that their means permit, should provide for themselves and their children. The law now encourages spouses to avoid bitterness after family break-down and to settle their money and property problems. An object of the modern law is to encourage each to put the past behind them and to begin a new life which is not overshadowed by the relationship which has broken down.

This court cannot entertain an appeal against a perfected and subsisting order by a party who is expressed to have consented to it. Moreover, the lower court has ex hypothesi not adjudicated on the validity of its own order, so that there is nothing to be brought up for question in a court of appeal. The only remedy is to commence a fresh proceeding at first instance to set the order aside.

I think that a party, who gets leave, can appeal from a consent order on wider grounds, at any rate in interlocutory matters. It was deliberately made, with full knowledge, with the full agreement of the solicitors on both sides. But, even though the order cannot be set aside, there is still a question whether it should be enforced. It may, in its discretion, vary or alter them even though made originally by consent.

The first condition is that new events have occurred since the making of the order which invalidate the basis, or fundamental assumption, upon which the order was made, so that, if leave to appeal out of time were to be given, the appeal would be certain, or very likely, to succeed. The second condition is that the new events should have occurred within a relatively short time of the order having been made.

It follows necessarily from this that each party concerned in claims for financial provision and property adjustment (or other forms of ancillary relief not material in the present case) owes a duty to the court to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to the other party and the court. This principle of full and frank disclosure in proceedings of this kind has long been recognised and enforced as a matter of practice.