17. The application was brought before Coleridge J. on 3 September. He also had before him the referral of the application that had led to Kirkwood J`s injunction. It appears that no one who appeared before Coleridge J on September 3 had appeared before Bennett J on August 3. The lawyers, lawyers and their assistants had all gone on vacation. The freezing order was reasonably taken by the husband`s obligation not to sell or to charge for the final marital dwelling. The main issue of the decision was the summoning of the woman on 24 August. The judge refused to turn the agreement into a court order. The only basis on which he was invited was that the agreement was so clear that its translation into a commission was inevitable.
Despite the fact that the husband`s lawyer, in his skeletal argument, agreed not only that an agreement was reached, but also that the judge approved the conditions, the wife`s lawyer tried to rely on nothing other than the contractual agreement. On that basis, I believe that Coleridge J. rightly refused to perfect an injunction within the meaning of the legal aid project. Instead, he gave instructions for an affidavit from the husband in response to what had been filed by the wife to support her claim, scheduled another FDR hearing and, in addition, a five-day trial. On her return, Miss Baron noticed that her case had slipped in her absence. Accordingly, on 12 October, the wife submitted another application by order of: 39. What, then, is the legal consequence of this conclusion? On the one hand, there is the full contractual agreement that was not concluded in judgment. The legal effect is clearly demonstrated by De Lasala vs. De Lasala  AC 546 and the extent to which the contractual agreement must be reflected in the subsequent exercise of judicial power is determined by that court`s decision in Edgar vs. Edgar.
On the other hand, there are effective consent decisions made by the Tribunal. A party may not depart from such an order and may only request release by document or application, which asserts a prejudicial element such as misrepresentation, error, substantial secrecy or a subsequent fundamental and unforeseen change in circumstances. Barder v Caluori  AC 20, Livesey v Jenkins  AC 424 and Robinson v Robinson  4 FLR 102. 16. This development has obviously caused great fear for women`s advisers. On the advice of Miss Baron, an order from Judge Kirkwood was obtained on 22 August, without notice, to freeze £3.7 million of her husband`s fortune. . . .