Baudin & Lakatos

In the matter of *Baudin & Lakatos*, Ms Baudin (the applicant wife) and Mr Lakatos (the respondent husband) brought proceedings before Burchardt J. The dispute concerned the validity of an agreement between the parties, which the wife sought to have set aside to enable a property adjustment claim. The court also considered the division of the former matrimonial home, the sole asset of the relationship.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the agreement between the parties should be set aside pursuant to section 91K of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This required the court to determine if the wife had a sufficient understanding of the agreement when she signed it, particularly in light of allegations of duress and unconscionability. A secondary issue was the appropriate division of the former matrimonial home, considering the contributions of each party to the relationship and the asset.

Burchardt J reasoned that the wife lacked a true understanding of the agreement she signed, finding that it had not been properly explained to her. This lack of understanding, coupled with the circumstances surrounding its execution, led the court to set aside the agreement. The court then addressed the property adjustment, noting that the matrimonial home was entirely owned by the husband prior to the relationship. Despite the wife's minimal financial contribution to the home, the court recognised her contributions to household duties and the care of the parties' son. Applying the principles from *In the marriage of Re Mallet*, the court assessed the contributions as 80 per cent to the husband and 20 per cent to the wife.

The court ordered that the agreement be set aside pursuant to section 91K of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The property adjustment was ordered on the basis of an 80/20 split in favour of the husband, reflecting the parties' respective contributions.