The court found that the applicant's counsel expressly consented to the adoption of the Bill of Costs in open court, and there was no evidence that the consent was given without instructions or under any of the grounds that would justify setting aside a consent order. The applicant failed to demonstrate fraud, collusion, misapprehension, or any other sufficient reason to set aside the consent. The court reaffirmed the principle that a consent order is binding unless vitiated by recognized exceptions, and the advocate's authority to compromise is presumed unless specifically limited and such limitation is communicated. Accordingly, the application to set aside the consent order was dismissed for lack of merit.