The failure of one party to complete a conveyance as part of the ancillary relief order rendered the order executory, and therefore subject to the court’s jurisdiction to amend it. The court discussed the principle in de Lasala and saying that the principle ‘represent a significant departure from the general principle frequently stated in cases arising in other divisions of the High Court, that the force and effect of consent orders derives from the contract between the parties leading to, or evidenced by, or incorporated in, the consent order . . A distinction, therefore, has to be made between consent orders made in this and other types of litigation.’
 1 All ER 789
England and Wales
Cited – de Lasala v de Lasala PC 4-Apr-1979
No Revisiting of Capital Claim after Compromise
(Hong Kong) Where capital claims are compromised in a once-for-all court order they cannot be revisited or reissued in the absence of a substantial mistake. Capital orders are ‘once-for-all orders’. The legal effect of the order derives not from the . .
Cited – McGladdery v McGladdery CA 21-Jul-1999
A husband having been ordered to transfer his shares in a private company to his wife, found that she had breached the undertaking she had given as part of the order, and had used her majority shareholding to dispose of company assets out of the . .
Cited – Kelley v Corston CA 20-Aug-1997
The plaintiff employed the defendant barrister to pursue her claim for ancillary relief in divorce. She sought to recover damages for his alleged negligence.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit for negligence in advocacy extends to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223617