Kaimal & Kaimal

In *Kaimal & Kaimal*, the Chief Justice was required to determine the validity of a financial agreement entered into by the husband and wife on 30 July 2018. The dispute concerned whether this agreement was binding under section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the financial agreement met the stringent requirements for validity stipulated by section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the agreement was properly executed and if the parties had received the necessary independent legal advice prior to signing.

The Court declared that the financial agreement was not binding within the meaning of section 90G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). While the specific reasoning for this declaration is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that at least one of the statutory requirements for a binding financial agreement was not satisfied. The Court then ordered the parties to file evidence and submissions regarding costs, with the issue of costs to be determined on the papers.