Hoult and Hoult

In *Hoult and Hoult*, Murphy J of the Family Court of Australia considered a financial agreement entered into between the parties, Ms Hoult and Mr Hoult, pursuant to section 90B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The dispute concerned the enforceability of this agreement.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the financial agreement was binding on the parties. This required the court to determine, pursuant to section 90G(1A)(c) of the Act, whether it would be unjust and inequitable for the agreement not to be binding.

Murphy J reasoned that the agreement was indeed binding. The court applied the principles of section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which allows for financial agreements to be binding if certain conditions are met, including that it would be unjust and inequitable not to make the order.

The court declared that within the meaning of section 90G(1A)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), it would be unjust and inequitable if the financial agreement was not binding on the parties. Consequently, pursuant to section 90G(1B) of the Act, the financial agreement was declared to be binding on Ms Hoult and Mr Hoult.