Suffolk and Suffolk (No. 2)

In *Suffolk and Suffolk (No. 2)*, O’Reilly J of the Family Court of Australia considered the validity of a financial agreement made between the parties on 10 August 2004. The dispute concerned whether this agreement was binding on the parties under section 90G(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

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.