Kam and CM

The Full Federal Court considered an appeal concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement and its implications for a subsequent family law proceeding. The parties, Kam and CM, had previously entered into a binding financial agreement under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) (the Act). The dispute arose when CM sought to initiate family law proceedings for property settlement, which Kam argued was precluded by the terms of the financial agreement.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the financial agreement validly excluded the jurisdiction of the Family Court to make orders for property settlement, notwithstanding the provisions of s 79 of the Act. This required the Court to determine the scope and enforceability of the financial agreement, particularly in light of any potential ambiguity or operative clauses within it that might permit or prevent such proceedings.

The Court analysed the terms of the financial agreement, focusing on the specific wording used by the parties to define the extent of their agreement to finalise their financial affairs. It applied principles of contractual interpretation to ascertain the parties' intention at the time the agreement was made. The Court held that the financial agreement, properly construed, did not operate as a complete bar to future applications under s 79 of the Act, as it contained provisions that preserved certain rights or did not unequivocally exclude all future claims. The Court affirmed that for a financial agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the Family Court, its terms must be clear and unambiguous in their intention to do so.

The Full Court therefore dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's finding that the financial agreement did not prevent CM from commencing proceedings for property settlement.