› Requirements for consent by self-represented defendant
› RSC O 42 r 8
Practice and Procedure
› Consent Orders
› Circumstances in which court may decline to extract consent order
› Grounds to set aside compromise agreement
Practice and Procedure
› Summary Judgment
› Enforcement of settlement agreement compromising proceedings
Practice and Procedure
› Summary Judgment
› Claim against guarantor
› Whether arguable defence
Quick Take
1Where a defendant is a litigant in person and has not given consent before a judge as required by RSC O 42 r 8, the court must decline to extract a consent order even where the defendant signed the consent order as part of a settlement deed — but the court retains power under SCA s 24(7) to summarily enforce the underlying settlement agreement in the same action if no arguable ground exists to set it aside
2A settlement deed compromising litigation cannot be set aside for misleading conduct by silence or non-disclosure where the representee was not in fact led into error, the undisclosed information (sale price of secured property) fell within the parameters already known to the representee, and the settlement was objectively more favourable to the representee than the alternative outcome — the absence of compensable loss is fatal to both ACL s 18 and ASIC Act s 12DA claims to void the compromise
3A guarantor's challenge to a Dobbs certificate requires identification of a specific error in the certified amount; prior admitted errors in earlier affidavit calculations that were corrected, bare assertions of inability to verify, and complaints about enforcement timing do not suffice to displace the certificate's conclusive evidentiary effect
