Beroni & Corelli

In the Family Court of Australia, Beroni & Corelli was a case where the wife, Corelli, sought to have a binding financial agreement (BFMA) set aside on the grounds of undue influence and unconscionability. The wife argued that she had entered into the BFMA under undue influence and that the terms of the agreement were unconscionable due to her lack of proficiency in English and the inadequacy of legal advice she received. The husband, Beroni, appealed against the primary judge’s decision to set aside the BFMA, arguing that the wife had not met her onus of proving undue influence and that the terms of the agreement were not unconscionable.

The court was required to determine whether the wife had discharged the onus of proving that the BFMA was obtained through undue influence or was unconscionable. This involved examining the circumstances surrounding the execution of the BFMA, including the wife's proficiency in English, the adequacy of legal advice she received, and whether the terms of the agreement were a factor in demonstrating vitiating factors. The court also needed to assess whether the husband had failed to call his solicitor, who could have provided evidence to counter the wife's claims, and if this amounted to a failure to discharge the onus of proof. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the application of the rule in Jones v Dunkel to determine whether the wife’s failure to call the solicitor affected her ability to meet her onus of proof.

The court found that the wife had not established any of the grounds of appeal on which she relied. The primary judge had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles in concluding that the BFMA was not obtained through undue influence or was unconscionable. The court noted that the husband had not demonstrated any special disadvantage or pressure exerted on the wife, nor had he shown that the terms of the agreement were a factor in demonstrating vitiating factors. The court also found that the husband's failure to call his solicitor did not amount to a failure to discharge the onus of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. Given that the husband was wholly unsuccessful in his appeal and considering the substantial disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of the appeal in the amount of $82,275.36.