Hoult & Hoult

In *Hoult & Hoult*, the wife sought to have a financial agreement made with the husband set aside. The central dispute concerned whether the agreement, despite being a financial agreement for the purposes of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), was binding. The matter came before Murphy J.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the financial agreement complied with the requirements of s 90G of the Act, specifically concerning the advice provided by the parties' legal representatives. Secondly, the court considered whether the agreement was vitiated by fraud under s 90K(1)(a), focusing on allegations of non-disclosure of assets by the husband. Finally, the court examined whether the agreement was obtained by unconscionable conduct on the part of the husband, as contemplated by s 90K(1)(e), by assessing whether the wife was under a special disadvantage and if the husband unconscionably took advantage of it.

Murphy J found that the financial agreement was not binding because it failed to comply with s 90G(1)(b) of the Act, as there was no evidence that the wife was informed of the advantages and disadvantages of the agreement. While the husband admitted to failing to disclose a boat, there was insufficient evidence to establish an intention to deceive, thus fraud was not proven. Similarly, allegations of non-disclosure regarding previous Family Court orders were not attended by an intention to deceive. Regarding unconscionable conduct, although the wife was found to be under a special disadvantage due to factors known to the husband, there was no evidence that the husband unconscionably exploited this disadvantage.

Consequently, the court declared that the financial agreement made between the husband and wife was not binding within the meaning of s 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The parties were ordered to file further affidavits and written submissions concerning the application of s 90G(1A) of the Act, with provisions for potential cross-examination and oral submissions, and the matter was to be listed for further hearing if required.