DOOLAN & DOOLAN

In *Doolan & Doolan*, the husband sought to argue that a financial agreement and child support agreement entered into by the parties was no longer binding due to changed circumstances. The dispute concerned the enforceability of these agreements, specifically whether the husband's business failure and current financial position rendered the agreements "impracticable" to carry out. The matter was heard by Judge Small.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "impracticable" within the context of financial and child support agreements. The court was required to determine whether the husband's changed financial circumstances, stemming from the failure of his business, met the threshold for impracticability, thereby excusing him from his obligations under the agreements.

Judge Small reasoned that the husband's argument of impracticability failed because the agreements themselves contemplated the possibility of financial fluctuations. The court found that the husband had not demonstrated that the agreements were impossible to perform, but rather that performance had become more difficult or burdensome due to his business failure. The court applied the principle that mere financial hardship or increased difficulty in performance does not equate to impracticability in the legal sense.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband pay the wife a sum of $77,969.22, representing the amounts due under the financial and child support agreements, less any overpayments of child support. This amount was further to be reduced by the value of a specified motor vehicle as at 16 May 2013. The matter was adjourned for a mention regarding the wife's costs application.