Thorne v Kennedy

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning financial agreements made between Ms Thorne and Mr Kennedy. Ms Thorne, a woman with no substantial assets, moved to Australia to marry Mr Kennedy, a wealthy property developer. Shortly before their wedding, Ms Thorne was presented with a pre-nuptial agreement, which she was told she must sign for the wedding to proceed. Despite receiving advice from an independent solicitor that the agreement was highly unfavourable, Ms Thorne signed it. A substantially identical post-nuptial agreement was signed later. Ms Thorne sought to have these agreements set aside.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the financial agreements were voidable due to duress, undue influence, or unconscionable conduct. The Court was also required to consider whether the primary judge's reasons for finding the agreements voidable were adequate.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the agreements were not voidable. The Court reasoned that while Ms Thorne was in a position of vulnerability and received poor independent legal advice, the circumstances did not amount to duress or undue influence. The Court emphasised that the pressure exerted by Mr Kennedy, while significant, did not rise to the level of illegitimate pressure that would vitiate the agreement. The Court also noted that Ms Thorne had the option to refuse to sign and that the wedding would not proceed, which was a choice she ultimately made by signing. The Court found that the primary judge's reasoning, which focused heavily on Ms Thorne's lack of agency and the unconscionable outcome, did not adequately address the specific legal requirements for establishing duress or undue influence.

The High Court set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia and ordered that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to the High Court.