Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166 (11 September 2025)

🔹 Introduction

This case concerned a father’s attempt to appeal parenting consent orders he had previously agreed to, which granted the mother sole parental responsibility and provided for him to spend alternate weekends, school holidays, and special occasions (including Father’s Day) with the child. The father argued he misunderstood the orders, that they were not properly explained, and that he did not receive adequate legal advice. The Court summarily dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that parties are generally bound by their consent in litigation unless jurisdictional error or vitiating factors exist.

🔹 Facts and Issues

• Background: On 20 August 2025, final parenting orders were made by consent. The father was legally represented at the time.
• Orders: Child to live with the mother; she to have sole parental responsibility; father to have alternate weekends, holiday time, and special occasions including Father’s Day.
• Appeal: Father appealed orders 3a (alternate weekends) and 15a (Father’s Day).
• Father’s arguments:
• The orders were not properly explained to him.
• He lacked adequate legal advice, amounting to procedural unfairness.
• The orders conflicted with existing arrangements for another child (half-sibling).
• Key Issues:

1. Can a party appeal consent orders on the basis of misunderstanding or inadequate explanation?
2. Does representation by counsel bind the party to consent given in court?

🔹 Rule (Law)

• Appeals against consent orders: While consent orders are appealable, a party cannot appeal simply because they regret or misunderstand their agreement. Appeals are limited to jurisdictional errors or where the agreement/order is vitiated (Harvey v Phillips (1956) 95 CLR 235 at 244; Gilbert v Estate of Gilbert (1990) FLC 92-125).
• Binding nature of counsel’s conduct: Parties are bound by the conduct and representations of their legal representatives (Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531 at [114]; TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124).
• Complaints against lawyers: Dissatisfaction with legal advice is a matter for professional complaint, not grounds of appeal (Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423 at [46]).
• Summary dismissal of appeals: Allowed where no reasonable prospect of success exists (s 46(2)–(3), Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021).

🔹 Application (Court’s Reasoning)

• The orders were made with the father’s consent, confirmed by his counsel in court.
• Even if he misunderstood the terms, the Court was entitled to rely on his counsel’s assurance of consent.
• The grounds did not allege jurisdictional error or absence of power, so the appeal could not succeed.
• Orders 3a and 15a were “plain on their face,” making misunderstanding implausible ([11]).
• Any complaint about poor legal advice must be taken up with the lawyers or professional bodies, not through an appeal ([12]).
• Since the appeal raised no valid grounds, it was dismissed summarily under s 46.

🔹 Judgment

• Appeal summarily dismissed ([1], [12]).
• Parties bound by consent unless exceptional circumstances exist.

🔹 Precedents Cited

• Harvey v Phillips (1956) 95 CLR 235 – appeals from consent orders limited to jurisdictional errors.
• Gilbert v Estate of Gilbert (1990) FLC 92-125 – consent orders derive force from court’s authority.
• Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124 – parties bound by legal representatives’ conduct.
• Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423 – complaints about legal advice handled through professional regulation, not appeals.

🔹 Conclusion (Take-Home Lesson)

This case underscores that consent orders are binding: a party cannot later appeal simply because they misunderstood or regretted them. Appeals are limited to jurisdictional or procedural defects, not poor advice or hindsight dissatisfaction. If a party feels their lawyer failed them, the proper avenue is a professional complaint, not litigation.

👉 Lesson: In family law, think carefully before consenting to orders—once entered, they are almost impossible to undo on appeal.