Fevia & Carmel-Fevia

In Fevia & Carmel-Fevia, Murphy J considered an application concerning the existence and enforceability of a financial agreement made in contemplation of marriage. The dispute arose from significant concerns surrounding the formalisation of the document, specifically that the husband's signed version was materially different from the wife's, and the wife was not provided with a copy of the husband's signed agreement until proceedings commenced.

The court was required to determine whether a valid financial agreement existed between the parties within the meaning of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the requirements for a financial agreement under s 90B and the implications of non-compliance with s 90G, including the distinction between the roles of these sections and the interpretation of what constitutes a "copy" and the timeframe for its provision. The court also examined the potential application of contractual and equitable principles, including estoppel, in relation to financial agreements.

Murphy J reasoned that the fundamental requirements of s 90G of the Act had not been met, particularly concerning the provision of a copy of the agreement as signed by both parties. The court found that the absence of a valid agreement meant that the question of it being a "binding" financial agreement did not arise. Consequently, the court declared that no financial agreement existed between the parties within the meaning of the Act, nor was there any binding financial agreement. The wife's application for property settlement under s 79 was listed for further directions before a Registrar.