Peacock v Peacock [2017] NIFam 10 (12 May 2017)

Peacock v Peacock [2017] NIFam 10 (12 May 2017)

There was no evidence of non-disclosure, mistake, or supervening event invalidating the basis of the consent order. Mr Peacock was aware of the trust income, had not sought disclosure, and had signed a disclaimer. The documents he removed from Mrs Peacock's home were unlawfully obtained and inadmissible. The application was not made promptly, and there was no basis to set aside the order or grant discovery.

Citation
[2017] NIFam 10
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Samuel Peacock; Respondent/petitioner: Penelope Louise Peacock
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Ancillary Relief / Set Aside Consent Order / Application to Set Aside Consent Order and for Discovery; Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Consent Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Setting Aside Orders, Barder Principle, Confidentiality of Documents
Family Law Ancillary Relief Consent Orders Disclosure Obligations Setting Aside Orders Barder Principle Confidentiality of Documents

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Peacock

Applicant/respondent

Penelope Louise Peacock

Respondent/petitioner

Procedural Posture

Family Law Ancillary Relief / Set Aside Consent Order / Application to Set Aside Consent Order and for Discovery; Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order made in 2010 should be set aside on grounds of non-disclosure, mistake, or supervening event under Barder v Barder principles
  2. 2 Whether Mr Peacock can rely on documents removed from Mrs Peacock's home without her consent
  3. 3 Whether there was delay or lack of promptness in bringing the application

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of non-disclosure, mistake, or supervening event invalidating the basis of the consent order. Mr Peacock was aware of the trust income, had not sought disclosure, and had signed a disclaimer. The documents he removed from Mrs Peacock's home were unlawfully obtained and inadmissible. The application was not made promptly, and there was no basis to set aside the order or grant discovery.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for discovery refused
  • Application to set aside consent order dismissed