FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SUFFOLK & SUFFOLK (NO. 2) | [2009] FamCA 917 |
| FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL AGREEMENT - Whether financial agreement binding – Strict compliance – Whether after the agreement was signed the original agreement or a copy of it was given to the wife – Statutory provision not complied with – Financial agreement not binding |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s90G1(b) and (e) |
| 3D Scaffolding Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCAFC 75 Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 Black & Black (2008) FLC 93-357; [2008] FamCAFC 7 Browne v Dunn [1894] 6 R 67 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 4) 229 ALR 136; [2006] FCA 446 Cook’s Constructions Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 179 J and J [2006] FamCA 442 Jones & Dunkel (1959) 10l CLR 298 LC v TC (1998) FLC 92-803 Whatley & Whatley [2007] FamCA 1671 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Suffolk |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Suffolk |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 4720 | of | 2008 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 4 September 2009 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | O’Reilly J |
| HEARING DATE: | 15 and 22 July 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Hall |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Chan Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Hackett |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Hirst & Co |
Orders
IT IS DECLARED
The financial agreement made by the parties and dated 10 August 2004 is not a financial agreement binding on the parties under s90G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
AND IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY
The financial agreement made by the parties and dated 10 August 2004 is set aside.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Suffolk & Suffolk is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC4720/2008
| MS SUFFOLK |
Applicant
And
| MR SUFFOLK |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The parties married in August 2004. They separated in mid 2007.
On 10 August 2004 the parties signed a financial agreement, expressed to be pursuant to s90B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (the Act).
Section 90G(1) of the Act provides, and as at that date provided:
(1)A financial agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement if, and only if:
(a)the agreement is signed by all parties; and
(b)the agreement contains, in relation to each spouse party to the agreement, a statement to the effect that the party to whom the statement relates has been provided, before the agreement was signed by him or her, as certified in an annexure to the agreement, with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner as to the following matters:
(i) the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party;
(ii)the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to the party of making the agreement; and
(c)the annexure to the agreement contains a certificate signed by the person providing the…
Continue reading Suffolk and Suffolk (No. 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Suffolk and Suffolk (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 917
- Case
- [2009] FamCA 917
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the financial agreement complied with the formal requirements stipulated by section 90G(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to be considered a binding financial agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement was properly executed and if the parties had received independent legal advice as required by the legislation.
O’Reilly J found that the financial agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for a binding financial agreement. The court's reasoning focused on the lack of proper execution and the absence of independent legal advice for both parties at the time the agreement was made. Consequently, the court declared that the financial agreement was not binding on the parties under section 90G(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and ordered that the agreement be set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
IT IS DECLARED
1.
The financial agreement made by the parties and dated 10 August 2004 is not a financial agreement binding on the parties under s90G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
AND IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY
2.
The financial agreement made by the parties and dated 10 August 2004 is set aside.
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.