Event and Time
Event Description
In 2019, Ms. Tacoma initiated proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) seeking property settlement orders under section 90SM of the Family Law Act. During mediation, an agreement, though disputed by Mr. Sarber concerning the existence of a de facto relationship, led to disputed consent orders. Problems arose when Ms. Tacoma's solicitors, without proper representation for Mr. Sarber, sought to enforce these orders.
Application and Claims
- Applicant: Ms. Tacoma sought a property settlement, alleging a de facto relationship.
- Respondent: Mr. Sarber disputed the existence of the relationship yet pursued orders based on it.
- The appeal focused on whether proper consent was given for the orders made and whether the court had jurisdiction.
Judicial Decisions
The respondent conceded the appeal, leading to the decision that the consent orders were made in error due to lack of proper notice and representation for Mr. Sarber at the time they were filed. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Sarber, allowing the appeal and issuing a costs certificate in his favor.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Claims:
- Ms. Tacoma: Asserted that there was a valid agreement reached during mediation, justifying property settlement based on a purported de facto relationship. - Mr. Sarber: Denied the existence of the de facto relationship and argued that the consent orders sought lacked proper representation and were not freely consented to.
- Arguments:
- Ms. Tacoma: Argued that the orders reflected a just settlement and that the mediation outcome constituted consent. - Mr. Sarber: Asserted that there was confusion regarding representation, particularly since his new solicitors (Pearsons Lawyers) had not consented to the orders, nor had he directly authorized any correspondence suggesting consent to be sought.