Recent decisions have confirmed the finality of capital orders, says Caroline Lonsdale
The common law doctrine of caveat emptor could arguably apply to parties considering settlement proposals in ancillary relief proceedings.
There have been a number of recent cases in which the theoretical difference in percentage awards as between husband and wife has altered dramatically following events which have taken place not long after the signing of a consent order.
There are two complementary policies being pursued by the Court of Appeal at present; The first concerns non-disclosure on which the court is taking a robust approach. If a party can satisfy the Livesey v Jenkins test [1985] AC 424, [1985] 1 All ER 106 to show that full and frank disclosure has not been made, the consent order may be set aside; The second is that capital orders are essentially binding and final unless a vitiating factor is shown.
This article considers the recent decision in Walkden v Walkden [2009] EWCA Civ 627, [2009] All ER (D) 266 (Jun) which underpin the principle that acceptance of risk will prevent a party from setting
