Sullivan and Tyler

In *Sullivan and Tyler*, the wife sought to have a binding financial agreement set aside. The husband opposed this application. The matter came before Judge Henderson.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the financial agreement, entered into by the parties prior to their marriage, should be set aside pursuant to s 90K of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering whether the agreement was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, or by the influence of another person, or whether it was otherwise void or unenforceable. The court also considered whether it was proper for the court to make an order under s 90K(1)(d) setting aside the agreement.

Judge Henderson dismissed the wife's application. The court found that the wife had not established any of the grounds for setting aside the financial agreement under s 90K of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The evidence did not support allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence. The court concluded that the agreement was valid and binding.

The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs incidental to the application in the sum of $350.00, to be paid no later than 24 February 2017.