CUMPTON & RAINFORD

In the matter of Cumpton & Rainford, the applicant father sought adult child maintenance for his severely disabled adult daughter, Ms A Cumpton, from the respondent mother. The dispute centred on whether a clause within a document described as a "Financial Separation Agreement" precluded the father's application for adult child maintenance.

The primary legal issue before Judge Howard was whether paragraph 5.4 of the financial agreement, which purported to settle all claims for maintenance, was void by operation of section 90E of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The father contended that this clause was void because it failed to specify the child for whom maintenance was provided or the amount of maintenance payable, as required by section 90E. The mother argued that this clause, by its terms, barred the father's application.

The court considered the wording of paragraph 5.4, which broadly referred to settling claims for "any maintenance". It contrasted this with paragraph 4.1, which specifically addressed spousal maintenance and confirmed that the agreement did not make provision for it. The court accepted the father's argument that paragraph 5.4, in its general reference to "maintenance", constituted a provision relating to the maintenance of a child. As this provision did not specify the child's name or the amount of maintenance, it was therefore void pursuant to section 90E of the Act. The court found that the error in the agreement's preamble, referencing section 90 instead of the relevant section for financial agreements, did not vitiate the entire agreement, particularly in light of section 90K.

The court ordered that the respondent mother pay periodic maintenance of $120 per week for Ms A Cumpton, commencing on 17 December 2020, for a period of seven years. All other outstanding applications and responses were dismissed.