Abrum & Abrum

In *Abrum & Abrum*, the husband sought to enforce a financial agreement made on 7 February 2007, which he contended was a Binding Financial Agreement under section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The wife disputed the agreement's binding nature, arguing she did not receive proper legal advice and that the certificates of independent legal advice were non-compliant. She did not seek to set aside the agreement under section 90K. The husband also sought an order under section 90G(1B) of the Act declaring the agreement binding, even if it did not strictly comply with section 90G. The Family Court of Australia heard the matter.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the financial agreement met the strict requirements of section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to be considered binding, and if not, whether an order under section 90G(1B) should be made to declare it binding. Specifically, the court had to determine if the wife received the requisite independent legal advice regarding the effect of the agreement on her rights, and if the accompanying legal practitioner's statements complied with the Act's provisions. The unusual nature of the agreement, which dealt with only one property and purported to oust the court's jurisdiction in relation to that property while leaving other rights intact, was also a significant factor.

The court applied the principle that strict compliance with section 90G is mandatory, as established in cases like *Black & Black*. It found that to provide effective advice under section 90G(1)(b), a legal practitioner must identify a party's existing rights under the Act, such as those under sections 79 and 75(2), to enable a comparison with the proposed agreement's terms. The court noted that the solicitor, Mr. Lodge, did not inquire into the parties' assets and liabilities, the history of the marriage, or the wife's contributions and earning capacity, nor did he explain the effect of sections 79 or 75(2) of the Act. This lack of specific advice meant the wife could not have been adequately informed of the advantages and disadvantages of the agreement in comparison to her potential rights under the Act.

The court declared that the financial agreement entered into by the parties on 7 February 2007 was binding pursuant to section 90G(1B) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).