Thorne v Kennedy

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement. The parties were Ms Thorne, the appellant, and Mr Kennedy, the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the agreement, entered into shortly before their marriage, was voidable due to duress, undue influence, or unconscionability, and therefore unenforceable.

The High Court was required to determine whether the prenuptial agreement was vitiated by unconscionable conduct, specifically duress or undue influence, at the time of its execution. This involved assessing whether Ms Thorne's entry into the agreement was a product of her free will, or whether it was procured by illegitimate pressure or exploitation of a relationship of trust and confidence. The Court also considered the principles governing the enforceability of financial agreements made under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The Court held that the prenuptial agreement was voidable due to unconscionable conduct. It found that Mr Kennedy had exerted illegitimate pressure on Ms Thorne, who was in a vulnerable position, by presenting her with the agreement shortly before the wedding and threatening to call off the ceremony if she did not sign it. This pressure, coupled with the significant disparity in the parties' financial positions and Ms Thorne's lack of independent legal advice, amounted to duress. The Court affirmed that for a financial agreement to be binding, it must be entered into freely and voluntarily, without undue influence or coercion.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the prenuptial agreement and remitting the matter to the Family Court for determination of property settlement.