Megna v Marshall; Tory v Marshall

In the case of Megna v Marshall; Tory v Marshall, the applicants, Megna and Tory, sought to set aside a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) entered into by the respondents, Marshall and his former spouse. The dispute arose within the Supreme Court of Victoria, exercising its jurisdiction under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act. The applicants argued the BFA was not fairly and reasonably disclosed to them, and that it was unjust to enforce the agreement. The respondents contended that the agreement was valid and binding.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the application to set aside the BFA, and if the agreement was indeed unfair and unjust. The court also considered whether the circumstances justified an order for costs under the Family Law Act. The court examined the nature of the jurisdiction conferred by the Cross-Vesting Act and whether it extended to setting aside BFAs. Additionally, the court assessed the fairness of the disclosure and whether the agreement should be enforced.

The court found that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to hear the application, as it fell within the ambit of the Cross-Vesting Act. The court further held that the BFA was not fairly and reasonably disclosed to the applicants, and it was unjust to enforce it. The applicants were awarded costs, as the court found the circumstances justified such an order under the Family Law Act. The court concluded that the agreement was not valid and enforceable, and it was set aside. The final orders included the setting aside of the BFA and the awarding of costs to the applicants.