consent orders – where consent order made in absence of party – where Crown filed amended defence without consent of other parties or leave of Court to admit allegations made in claim by claimants – where as a consequence of amended defence Crown and claimants signed and filed a consent order granting relief sought in claim – where consent order completely defeated rights claimed by defendant – where defendant was not party to the consent order – where defendant applied to set aside consent order – where Judge misconstrued application to set aside consent order as an application to set aside default judgment – consent order made without presence of affected party is unethical and contrary to rules of Court – overriding objective of rules of Court includes to justly deal with all matters that come before the Court – behaviour of agreeing to consent orders in absence of affected party is trying to avoid trial of real issues created unnecessary delay expense and has used up valuable Court time
Crown – conduct of Crown – at least the second time the State has been involved in consent orders that deprived parties to litigation of their proper right to hearing – we struggle to understand why the Attorney General would be party to such a practice given the obligations of his high office to be fair and even handed – we are grateful to the Solicitor General who accepted the consent order should never have been agreed to
Leave a Reply