Hough & Stenberg

In this matter before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, the husband sought orders for property settlement, including the payment of a sum of money and the transfer of specific items. The wife challenged the court's jurisdiction to consider certain aspects of the husband's affidavit, specifically those relating to the initial cohabitation period and the parties' financial positions at the time of a section 87 agreement.

The central legal issue was whether the court retained jurisdiction to hear property settlement proceedings concerning financial matters that were dealt with in an agreement approved under section 87 of the relevant Act, notwithstanding the approval of that agreement. The court was required to determine the effect of such an approved agreement on subsequent applications for property settlement.

The court considered the principles established in cases concerning property settlement proceedings instituted after the approval of a section 87 maintenance agreement. It drew upon the reasoning in *Perlman v Perlman*, where it was held that once an approval under section 87 is given and not revoked, no court having jurisdiction under the Act may make any order with respect to the financial matters covered by the agreement. This provision was interpreted as a clear declaration that no further proceedings under the Act could occur in relation to those specific financial matters. The court found this category of cases to be particularly relevant to the present proceedings.