Shaw v Shaw [1965] HCA 39

Shaw v Shaw [1965] HCA 39

Special leave was refused because the Full Court's decision was clearly right: the parties' terms of settlement were an agreement that consent orders be made, not an agreement within s. 87 (1) (k) to accept benefits in lieu of rights under an existing order or in lieu of seeking an order under Pt VIII. The consent maintenance order was therefore subject to variation under s. 87 (1) (j), and the purported sanctioning and approval of the agreement under s. 87 (1) (k) had no effect.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Matrimonial Cause / High Court of Australia Special Leave Application
Outcome
Application for special leave refused.
Legal Topics
['matrimonial Causes' 'maintenance Orders' 'consent Orders' 'variation of Maintenance Orders' 'sanction of Agreements']
['family Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['matrimonial Causes' 'maintenance Orders' 'consent Orders' 'variation of Maintenance Orders' 'sanction of Agreements']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Matrimonial Cause / High Court of Australia Special Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' terms of settlement were an agreement within the scope and operation of s. 87 (1) (k) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959." 'Whether a consent order for maintenance could be made insusceptible of variation under s. 87 (1) (j) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959.' "Whether special leave to appeal should be granted where the Full Court's decision was clearly right."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the Full Court's decision was clearly right: the parties' terms of settlement were an agreement that consent orders be made, not an agreement within s. 87 (1) (k) to accept benefits in lieu of rights under an existing order or in lieu of seeking an order under Pt VIII. The consent maintenance order was therefore subject to variation under s. 87 (1) (j), and the purported sanctioning and approval of the agreement under s. 87 (1) (k) had no effect.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave refused.']