Chronis and Sencher

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Chronis (the applicant) and Ms Sencher (the respondent) presented a dispute concerning property orders and a binding financial agreement. The matter came before Aldridge J for a hearing to determine threshold issues.

The court was required to determine three preliminary issues. Firstly, whether a binding financial agreement dated 30 June 2010 should be set aside on the grounds of fraud or unconscionable conduct. Secondly, if the agreement was not set aside, whether the parties were in a de facto relationship for the purposes of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Thirdly, again assuming the agreement was not set aside, the court needed to determine the true construction of clause 33.3 of the agreement and what sum was payable to the applicant under it.

Aldridge J reasoned that it was appropriate to hear these threshold issues separately and in advance of other matters. This approach was favoured due to the jurisdictional significance of the binding financial agreement and the de facto relationship question, as the court would lack jurisdiction to alter property interests if the agreement stood or if no de facto relationship was found. The judge also noted that the resolution of these issues would clarify the factual basis for construing a specific clause in the agreement. The court considered that proceeding with these preliminary matters would avoid unnecessary expense and preparation for a case that the court might ultimately lack jurisdiction to hear.

The court fixed the matter for a three-day hearing commencing on 11 August 2014 to determine these threshold issues. Each party was ordered to file and serve an updated case outline, including submissions, by 5 August 2014. The costs of the hearing on 29 April 2014 were reserved.