Binding Financial Agreement High Court

At DS Family Law, our team of committed family lawyers are aware of the legal requirements (and fair principles) relevant to binding financial agreements. Whether certainty is sought in the unfortunate event of a relationship breakdown or independent advice is needed on the benefits of a proposed agreement, DS Family Law takes pride in ensuring that our clients` interests are safeguarded and that they do not become a footnote in the canon of family court warning tales. Despite Ms. Thorne`s legal advice not to sign the agreements (which she did not follow), this did not in itself count against her. The High Court stated that, having received strong advice not to sign the agreements but to have signed them, Ms Thorne was in itself an event that might be relevant to determining whether to conclude undue influence. Many hoped that the Supreme Court`s decision would clarify the role of financial agreements. Unfortunately, the decision has created a whole new level of uncertainty. About four and a half years later, the parties separated. They had no children. The wife asked the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to remedy this situation by seeking the cancellation of the financial agreements and obtaining $1.1 million and a lump sum of $104,000 for alimony. Financial agreements, if properly prepared and executed, can provide the parties with certainty of the distribution of their assets upon separation. Current legislation requires strict requirements to be met for financial agreements to be legally binding, including these parties:- Oral deliberation led Thorne to clearly understand that the agreement was „totally inappropriate“ and the worst thing her lawyer had ever seen.

Moreover, it was obvious to her lawyer that Ms. Thorne was not so much considering the possibility of breaking up with Mr. Kennedy. The Senior Judge rightly considered the abusive and inappropriate provisions of the marriage contract and the contract of succession as relevant issues for her consideration of the abuse of the agreements. . . .