Peter & Elspeth (Contravention)

This matter concerned an application by Peter and Elspeth (the applicants) for an order under section 102 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) (the Act) to set aside a financial agreement made between them on 15 March 2017. The applicants sought to have the agreement declared void pursuant to section 90K of the Act. The application was heard by Benjamin J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the financial agreement was void under section 90K(1)(c) of the Act, on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud, duress, or undue influence, or by other conduct that was unconscionable. The applicants also contended that the agreement was void under section 90K(1)(d) of the Act, due to material misrepresentations made by the respondent.

Benjamin J considered the evidence presented by both parties, including affidavits and oral testimony. His Honour analysed the circumstances surrounding the formation of the financial agreement, paying close attention to the communications between the parties and their legal representatives. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning unconscionable conduct and misrepresentation in contract law, as well as the specific provisions of the Act relating to financial agreements. His Honour found that the applicants had not discharged the onus of proof required to establish fraud, duress, undue influence, or unconscionable conduct. Furthermore, the court determined that no material misrepresentations had been made that would render the agreement void.

Consequently, the application to set aside the financial agreement was dismissed.