FAMILY LAW – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – interlocutory trial held about validity of agreement – wife contending that agreement was invalid by reason of defects in the wording of the agreement and by reason of the husband failing to disclose the entirety of his financial circumstances.
AGREEMENT VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY – extensive review of authorities – held, clause 3 void for uncertainty.
UNDUE INFLUENCE – historical development of equitable doctrine – essential ingredients of doctrine – what constitutes – on the facts applicant’s will to enter into the agreement overborne by respondent such that her execution of the agreement was not the exercise of her own free will – agreement set aside for undue influence.
UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – historical development of equitable doctrine – relationship with equitable doctrine of undue influence – whether applicant stood in a position of special disadvantage vis-à-vis the respondent in this transaction – held, yes – extensive review of authorities – agreement set aside for unconscionable conduct.
FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACTS – common law doctrine – extensive review of authorities.
ESTOPPEL – equitable estoppel – estoppel by convention – review of authorities.
SECTION 90K(1)(d) OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT – elements of statutory grounds – application of Frederick v Frederick – ground established.
RELIEF – agreement voidable or void – agreement set aside – proceeding to go forward as a property alteration case under s 79 of the Family Law Act.
IMPLIED TERMS – Mackay v Dick and Secured Income Real Estate (Aust) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd – implied term that each party to the agreement will do what is required to give the other party to the agreement the benefit of the agreement.
SECTION 90K(1)(c) OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT – meaning of “impracticable” – whether equivalent to the common law doctrine of frustration – authorities examined in detail.
[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 Guild & Stasiuk
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Guild & Stasiuk [2020] FamCA 348
Case
[2020] FamCA 348
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Guild & Stasiuk, the Honourable Justice Wilson of the Family Court of Australia considered the validity of a financial agreement made between the applicant wife and the respondent husband. The wife sought to set aside the agreement, alleging it was invalid due to defects in its wording and the husband's failure to fully disclose his financial circumstances.
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the agreement was void for uncertainty, whether it was vitiated by undue influence or unconscionable conduct, and whether it was rendered void or voidable under section 90K(1)(d) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also considered the doctrines of frustration of contract, estoppel, and the meaning of "impracticable" under section 90K(1)(c) of the Act, as well as the existence of implied terms within the agreement.
Justice Wilson found that clause 3 of the agreement was void for uncertainty. Furthermore, the court determined that the wife's will to enter into the agreement had been overborne by the husband, constituting undue influence, and that the wife had stood in a position of special disadvantage, leading to unconscionable conduct. The court also found that the statutory ground under section 90K(1)(d) of the *Family Law Act* was established.
Consequently, the court ordered that the financial agreement be set aside. The respondent's application for orders under sections 90B and 90KA of the *Family Law Act* was dismissed. The court then made directions regarding the potential for further litigation before another judge or the continuation of proceedings before Justice Wilson, with the matter to proceed as a property alteration case under section 79 of the *Family Law Act*.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The agreement styled “prenuptial agreement” made between the applicant and the respondent on 27 June 2008 (also dated on its frontis page 26 June 2008) is set aside.
2.
I dismiss the respondent’s application for orders under ss 90B and 90KA of the Family Law Act.
3.
I direct that at or before midday on 28 May 2020 the solicitors for the respondent provide an email to my associates informing me whether the respondent wishes any further litigation in this proceeding to be conducted before another judge of this court.
4.
If no such email is provided by the date specified or if the respondent consents to this proceeding remaining as a proceeding pending in my docket, then the further hearing of this proceeding is adjourned to 10am on 1 June 2020 for directions.
5.
If the respondent objects to my hearing of this proceeding further, then this proceeding is referred to the docketed registrar for ongoing case management.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.