Suess & Suess

Ms Suess and Mr Suess were married in 1990 and separated in 2018, and a divorce was granted in 2021. The wife sought to have a financial agreement declared invalid and to have orders made under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The husband sought a declaration that the financial agreement was binding. The court had to decide whether the legal advice given to the wife was so poor that it amounted to no advice at all, and whether the quality and accuracy of the advice needed to be considered under section 90G(1)(b) of the Act. The court also considered the valuation of an asset, and whether there was unconscionable conduct or undue influence. The wife’s initiating application was dismissed.

The central issue before the court was whether the wife had received adequate legal advice regarding the financial agreement. The court examined the quality of the legal advice given to the wife, considering whether it was so inadequate that it amounted to no advice. The court also considered whether the quality and accuracy of the legal advice needed to be assessed under section 90G(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In addition, the court reviewed the valuation of an asset, and assessed whether there was any evidence of unconscionable conduct or undue influence. The wife’s initiating application was dismissed as the court found that the wife had received adequate legal advice and the financial agreement was binding.

The court found that the wife had received competent legal advice and the quality and accuracy of that advice was satisfactory. The wife had been provided with a detailed explanation of the financial agreement and its implications. The court also determined that there was no evidence of unconscionable conduct or undue influence. The valuation of the asset in question was deemed appropriate, and the wife's decision not to obtain a formal valuation was considered a reasonable one given the circumstances. The court concluded that the wife had been fully informed and had made an informed decision regarding the financial agreement. The initiating application was dismissed, and the financial agreement was declared binding.

The court ordered that the financial agreement entered into between the applicant and the respondent on 11 December 2019 is binding on the parties, and the Amended Initiating Application filed on 21 October 2022 be dismissed.