*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice (Volume 5 Part 4) contains the following material:
- Don’t tell me what the papers say: PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd  FSR 33;  UKSC 26
- Federal judicial power to reinstate discontinued proceedings: Chen v Monash University
- The High Court of Australia confirms practice of receiving agreed civil penalty submissions from regulators and wrongdoers
When does a consent order operate as or evidence a contract? – Alexander Sloan
This article discusses the factors that the courts have taken into account in determining whether a consent order operates as, or evidences, a contract between the parties to a court proceeding. Whether a consent order is deemed a contract is of particular significance in litigation, as it creates added difficulty in convincing a court to have the order set aside or varied. Courts are reluctant to interfere with or destroy contractual rights, given the prejudice that will likely flow from breaking a free and voluntary agreement. Unless there is some basis for rendering the contract void or voidable, the party seeking variation will need to show “good reason” or “exceptional circumstances” justifying the court’s interference with the consent order. As such, whether a contract underpins the consent order may have significant ramifications for a party’s ability to assert or dispute a right in a matter. This is an important question for practitioners to consider.
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: JCivLP Vol 5 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.