Cahill & Cahill

In *Cahill & Cahill*, Coleman J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement and its impact on a subsequent family law proceeding. The parties, Cahill and Cahill, had entered into a deed of settlement that purported to resolve all financial matters between them. However, a dispute arose as to whether this deed precluded the wife from pursuing further claims in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the terms of the deed of settlement were sufficiently comprehensive and clear to operate as a complete bar to any future financial proceedings between the parties under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the deed effectively extinguished the wife's right to seek property settlement orders in the Family Court, notwithstanding the existence of the deed.

Coleman J reasoned that for a deed of settlement to preclude Family Court proceedings, its terms must be unambiguous and demonstrate a clear intention by both parties to forgo their statutory rights under the *Family Law Act*. The court examined the wording of the deed, paying close attention to clauses that purported to release or discharge claims. His Honour found that while the deed was broadly worded, it did not contain an express and unequivocal statement that the parties were releasing their rights to seek orders under the *Family Law Act*. Consequently, the deed was not a sufficient bar to the wife's application in the Family Court. The court therefore made orders that the wife was at liberty to proceed with her application in the Family Court.