Legal Research
Cases
FLETCHER and FLETCHER

FLETCHER and FLETCHER

Case [2024] FCWA 114 6 June 2024

Binding Financial Agreement

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: FLETCHER and FLETCHER [2024] FCWA 114
CORAM: SUTHERLAND CJ
HEARD: [REDACTED]
DELIVERED : 6 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S: [REDACTED]
BETWEEN: MS FLETCHER
Applicant
AND
MR FLETCHER
Respondent

Catchwords:

BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT - Where parties signed a financial agreement approximately five years prior to their marriage - Where wife seeks orders setting aside the agreement on multiple grounds - Where husband conceded that cl 23 of the agreement was invalid for seeking to contract out of the provisions of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) - Where the agreement, except for cl 23, was declared to be binding and wife's application to set aside the agreement was otherwise dismissed - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Senior Counsel A, with Junior Counsel A
Respondent	:	Senior Counsel B, with Junior Counsel B

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Law Firm A
Respondent	:	Law Firm B

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Australian Goldfields NL (in liq) v North Australian Diamonds NL [2009]
WASCA 98
Balson & Sandberg [2023] FedCFamC2F 390
Barre & Barre [2021] FamCA 1010
Chaffin & Chaffin [2019] FamCA 260
Fewster & Drake (2016) FLC 93-745
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
G Scammel & Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251
Grist v Bailey [1967] Ch 532
Phak & Xu [2015] FamCA 939
Re Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Ex Parte Hoyts Corp Pty Ltd
(1993) 178 CLR 379
Upper Hunter County District Council v Australia Chilling and Freezing Co
Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429
Westpork Pty Ltd v Bio-Organics Pty Ltd [2018] WASC 291

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fletcher and Fletcher has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

This copy of the Court's Reason for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)), or to record a variation to the orders pursuant to r 311 Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

INTRODUCTION

1In November 2007, approximately five years prior to their marriage, [Mr Fletcher] (the husband) and [Ms Fletcher] (the wife) signed a financial agreement (the Agreement) pursuant to s 90B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act).
2On [REDACTED] July 2021, the wife commenced proceedings, inter alia, seeking final orders for property settlement and spousal maintenance. In summary, the wife sought that she receives 40 per cent of the parties' total property interests (which she estimated to be approximately $164,000,000.00), together with spousal maintenance in the sum of $15,000 per month until September 2033 (or alternatively lump sum spousal maintenance…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading FLETCHER and FLETCHER

Details

AGLC: Content removed [2024] FCWA 114
Case: [2024] FCWA 114
Decision Date: 6 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fletcher and Fletcher, the wife initiated proceedings to set aside a Binding Financial Agreement signed by the parties approximately five years before their marriage. The wife's application was based on several grounds, including that the agreement was not fairly and reasonably entered into due to procedural and substantive unfairness. The husband conceded that clause 23 of the agreement, which sought to contract out of the provisions of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), was invalid. The court was required to determine whether the agreement, apart from the conceded invalid clause, was binding and whether the wife's application to set aside the agreement should succeed on the other grounds.

The court first considered the validity of clause 23, which the husband conceded was not enforceable. The court then proceeded to examine the remaining grounds for setting aside the agreement, focusing on whether the agreement was fairly and reasonably entered into. The court analysed the evidence presented regarding the circumstances in which the agreement was signed, including the roles of the parties and their respective legal representatives. The court concluded that the agreement was fairly and reasonably entered into, given the evidence that both parties had independent legal advice and fully understood the terms of the agreement. The court found no substantive unfairness and rejected the wife's claims on those grounds.

Consequently, the court declared the agreement, except for the conceded invalid clause 23, to be binding. The wife's application to set aside the agreement was dismissed. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts, and the outcome in this case was based on the specific circumstances and evidence presented. The final orders of the court included the declaration that the agreement, except for clause 23, was binding and the dismissal of the wife's application to set aside the agreement.

Orders