The agreement concerned the care and contact as well as the distribution of the property of the parties. When the divorce was found on the undisputed list, the court refused to include the settlement deed signed by the parties and gave the injunctions regarding the first plaintiff`s claims. In referring to the Full Bench case of that court, the General Court examined, inter alia, the concept of dispute settlement by agreement, unlike disputes, and also took account of the circumstances in which settlement agreements may vary. The General Court found that Article 8(1) of the Law provides for the amendment of a maintenance order, but not of an order which deals with an allocation of the parties` property. This means that the Tribunal is excluded from the order to modify a transaction concerning the assets of the parties and that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, it may apply for such an injunction. The parties may, by mutual agreement, request the amendment of a consent document that has been included in the final divorce order if the order by mistake or supervision does not properly reflect their consent. A court may also amend a consent document in cases of maintenance, custody and contact of minor children within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Act, if there are sufficient reasons. If the variant concerns the care and contact of minor children, the family lawyer should be involved and their recommendations are taken into account by the court. Modification of the divorce order to reflect the exact names of the pension fund In Bond v Bond  OJL 23915 (C), the applicant requested the amendment of a consent document entered and included in the final act of divorce. The applicant requested that the maintenance rate be increased in the approval document .