Devesh and Devesh (No. 2)

In *Devesh and Devesh (No. 2)*, Dessau J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute concerning the interpretation of a deed of settlement and its application to the division of matrimonial property. The parties, Mr. and Mrs. Devesh, had entered into a deed of settlement following their separation, which purported to resolve all claims between them. The central issue before the court was whether the terms of this deed effectively precluded Mrs. Devesh from seeking further property adjustment orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal question before Dessau J was whether the deed of settlement, as executed by the parties, constituted a valid and binding agreement that extinguished all future claims for property settlement under the *Family Law Act*. This involved an examination of the language used in the deed, the circumstances surrounding its execution, and the legal principles governing the enforceability of such agreements in the context of family law. The court was required to determine if the deed was sufficiently clear and comprehensive to override the statutory jurisdiction of the Family Court to make property orders.

Dessau J reasoned that for a deed of settlement to operate as a complete bar to future claims under the *Family Law Act*, its terms must be unambiguous and clearly indicate an intention to forgo statutory rights. The court analysed the specific wording of the deed, finding that while it aimed to resolve all claims, it did not explicitly state that Mrs. Devesh was waiving her right to seek further orders under the Act. Consequently, Dessau J held that the deed did not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction to make property adjustment orders. The court concluded that the deed was not a bar to the application before it.