Abati & Cole

In the matter of *Abati & Cole*, the husband sought to sever a clause concerning child maintenance from a binding financial agreement, arguing it was void under s 90E(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The wife, in turn, sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the husband from commencing or continuing proceedings in Indonesia concerning her separate property. The case came before Macmillan J in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether it possessed the jurisdiction and power to grant the anti-suit injunction sought by the wife, and how to interpret the parties' intentions in entering into the financial agreement, particularly in light of the void child maintenance provision. The court was required to consider the purpose of financial agreements under the Act and the implications of severing a void clause.

Macmillan J reasoned that the financial agreement, despite the void child maintenance clause, remained otherwise binding on the parties. The court found that the purpose of the agreement, as evidenced by the parties' intentions, was to regulate their financial affairs, and that the severance of the void clause would not frustrate this overarching purpose. Applying principles of contract law and the *Family Law Act*, the court determined it had the power to grant an anti-suit injunction to prevent the husband from pursuing proceedings in Indonesia that would undermine the binding financial agreement and the wife's separate property rights.

Consequently, the court declared clause 81.1 of the financial agreement void but affirmed the agreement's validity as a binding financial agreement under s 90B of the *Family Law Act*. An anti-suit injunction was granted, restraining the husband from seeking relief against the wife in Indonesian courts concerning her separate property. The court also made orders regarding interest payments, the release of title deeds, and reserved all questions of costs for future determination.