Ismael & Ismael

In *Ismael & Ismael*, Beckhouse J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Wife seeking to set aside a financial agreement made in 2011. The Husband sought dismissal of the Wife's application and costs. The Wife alleged that she was the victim of domestic and sexual violence from the Husband from her arrival in Australia in 2014 until their separation in 2019, though these allegations were not tested at the hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the financial agreement dated 2011 was a binding financial agreement within the meaning of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically whether the requirements of section 90G(1) of the Act had been met. The Wife contended that she had not been provided with independent legal advice as required by section 90G(1)(b).

Beckhouse J found that the Husband had discharged the burden of proving the binding nature of the financial agreement. The court was satisfied that the mandatory requirements of section 90G(1) had been met, including the provision of independent legal advice to the Wife, as evidenced by the signed statement by her legal practitioner annexed to the agreement. While acknowledging certain circumstances, such as the Husband paying the Wife's legal costs and the presence of the Husband's friends during meetings, the court determined that these factors did not demonstrate a lack of independence in the advice received by the Wife. Consequently, the court declared the financial agreement to be binding and dismissed the Wife's application to set it aside.