Johanson & Johanson

In the matter of *Johanson & Johanson*, Ms Johanson (the applicant wife) sought to enforce a financial agreement entered into with Mr Johanson (the respondent husband). The husband opposed the enforcement, contending that the financial agreement was not binding due to alleged non-compliance with specific provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), namely sections 90G(1)(b) and (c). The proceedings were heard by Baumann J in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the financial agreement dated 22 January 2014 was binding on the parties, given the husband's assertions regarding the satisfaction of the statutory requirements for such agreements. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the husband had established that the conditions precedent to the agreement's enforceability under section 90G of the Act had not been met.

Baumann J found that the financial agreement was binding. The court's reasoning, based on the evidence presented, led to the conclusion that the requirements of section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) had been satisfied. While the husband was a practising health professional earning a substantial income, and the parties' net assets were modest, the court accepted that the husband intended to provide for his former partner. The agreement, which involved the use of life and trauma insurance policies to secure periodic spousal maintenance, was seen as a creative mechanism to achieve this. Crucially, the court found that the wife had received independent legal advice and acted in reliance upon it, a key element for the validity of such agreements.

Consequently, the court dismissed the husband's application challenging the validity of the financial agreement. The court declared the financial agreement dated 22 January 2014 to be binding upon both parties. The proceedings were adjourned for a case management hearing to determine the progression of the wife's substantive application for enforcement.