Balzia & Covich

In the matter of *Balzia & Covich*, Collier J of the Family Court of Australia considered whether a deed purporting to be a financial agreement under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was valid and binding. The dispute centred on the enforceability of a document executed after the parties were married, which was intended to regulate their financial affairs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the executed deed constituted a valid financial agreement under the Act, and if so, whether it was binding on the parties. Crucially, the court had to determine the significance of the solicitors' certificates attached to the deed, which referred to advice given pursuant to section 90B of the Act (financial agreements before marriage), rather than section 90C (financial agreements after marriage).

Collier J applied the principles established in *Black & Black*, holding that the onus rests on the party seeking to rely on a Binding Financial Agreement to demonstrate its strict compliance with the requirements of section 90G of the *Family Law Act*. Her Honour found that the solicitors' certificates, by referencing section 90B, were demonstrably incorrect given the timing of the deed's execution after the marriage. The court determined that rectification of these certificates to refer to section 90C was impermissible, as the legal advice required for pre-nuptial agreements differs from that for post-nuptial agreements. Consequently, the undated document was found not to be a valid financial agreement and was therefore of no force or effect.

The court ordered that the document was not a valid financial agreement and was of no force and effect. The parties were directed to attend a conciliation conference, and all parties' costs of the day were reserved.