Raleigh & Raleigh - [2015] FamCA 625

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RALEIGH & RALEIGH

[2015] FamCA 625

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – Where the husband seeks a declaration that the 2003 financial agreement is binding – where the wife seeks an order that the agreement be declared not to be binding or that it be set aside pursuant to s 90K Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the certificate by the wife’s lawyer contained an error – Where the wife was not provided with independent legal advice about the effect of the 2003 financial agreement upon the rights she had – Where a provision in s 90G was not complied with and where the financial agreement was found not to be binding– Where the husband made an application for an order under s 90G(1B), which application was dismissed – Where the wife sought that the financial agreement be set aside - Where the wife alleged the husband exercised undue influence over her – Where it is found that the relationship between the husband and wife was one where the husband had influence over the wife, and that the husband had exercised undue influence – Where the wife alleged that, in respect of the making of the financial agreement, the husband had engaged in conduct that was, in all the circumstances, unconscionable – Where it is found that at the time the wife entered into the agreement she suffered from a special disadvantage when dealing with the husband – Where it is found the husband knew of the special disadvantage and took advantage of that by insisting upon the making of the agreement – Order that the agreement be set aside

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth)

Hoult& Hoult (2011) FLC 93-489
Hoult & Hoult (2013) FLC 93-546
Logan & Logan (2013) FLC 93-555
Parker & Parker (2012) FLC ¶93-499
Pascot & Pascot [2011] FamCA 945
Saint Claire & Saint Claire [2013] FamCA 491 at [119]
Senior & Anderson (2011) FLC 93-470
Wallace & Stelzer (2013) FLC 93-566

Weldon and Asher (2014) FLC 93-579

APPLICANT:

Ms Raleigh

RESPONDENT:

Mr Raleigh

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

2533

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

30 July 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2014;
17 - 18 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Wheelhouse, SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Attunes Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Lethbridge, SC

Ms Clifford

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Haydon Fowler Corbett Jessop

Orders

I declare that the financial agreement entered into between the parties on 21 October 2003, is not binding.
The husband’s application for an order under s 90G(1B) of the Act is dismissed
The financial agreement entered into between the parties on 21 October 2003, be set aside.
Any competing applications for property settlement be listed for procedural directions before a Registrar on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Raleigh &…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Raleigh & Raleigh

Details

AGLC: Raleigh & Raleigh [2015] FamCA 625
Case: [2015] FamCA 625
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Raleigh & Raleigh*, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine the validity of a financial agreement entered into between the parties on 21 October 2003. The husband sought to rely on this agreement, while the wife sought to have it set aside.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the financial agreement was binding on the parties. This required an examination of the requirements for a financial agreement to be considered valid and binding under the relevant provisions of the Act, specifically concerning whether the agreement met the statutory criteria for enforceability.

Watts J found that the financial agreement was not binding. The reasoning applied by the court focused on the specific circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and whether it satisfied the statutory requirements for validity. Consequently, the husband's application for an order under s 90G(1B) of the Act was dismissed, and the financial agreement was set aside.

The court ordered that any competing applications for property settlement be listed for procedural directions before a Registrar on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

Orders

Orders of the court

I declare that the financial agreement entered into between the parties on 21 October 2003, is not binding.

The husband’s application for an order under s 90G(1B) of the Act is dismissed

The financial agreement entered into between the parties on 21 October 2003, be set aside.

Any competing applications for property settlement be listed for procedural directions before a Registrar on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.