The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral separation agreement reached between the parties' former counsel.
The respondent argued no agreement was reached and that the discussions were without prejudice.
The court found it had jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement despite non-compliance with the strict formalities of section 55 of the Family Law Act.
However, the court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial existed due to diametrically opposed evidence from the two lawyers regarding their settlement discussions.
The court declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers, as the credibility of counsel could not be fairly assessed on a paper record.
