this product is unavailable for purchase using a firm account, please log in with a personal account to make this purchase.

Select from any of the filters or enter a search term
Calendar
Calendar

Five top tips for preparing financial agreements after Thorne v Kennedy

Five top tips for preparing financial agreements after Thorne v Kennedy

By Jacqueline Campbell

Continuing Legal Education Finance Marriage 

0 Comments


If you think that the law relating to financial agreements changes faster than Australia changes Prime Ministers, you're right. The High Court decision in Thorne v Kennedy (2017) FLC 93-807 added to the complexity.

Here are the five top tips for preparing financial agreements in the wake of Thorne v Kennedy:

1. The stronger party should be prepared to negotiate the terms. A "take it or the relationship ends" approach means that the agreement is more likely to be set aside.

2. There should be time for careful reflection about the terms of the agreement, but the High Court did not say how long this should be. It is likely to vary according to the weaker party's level of education and literacy, the terms of the agreement and other matters.

3. The terms of an agreement which is "a bad bargain" for one of the parties may be relied on to establish that there was undue influence or unconscionable conduct. Why else would they have entered into it? An agreement which gives an outcome which is within the broad range of the broad discretion given under s 79 and s 90SM Family Law Act 1975 to make a property settlement order is more likely to withstand scrutiny than one which is "unfair and unreasonable".

4. If an agreement entered into before the commencement of a relationship or a marriage was affected by undue influence or unconscionable conduct, an agreement entered into after the relationship or the marriage commences is likely to be affected by the same vitiating factor.

5. Be wary of false declarations in recitals such as:

5.1 A party is able to support themselves without an income tested pension or benefit when they clearly cannot

5.2 There has been mutual disclosure when there has not

5.3 A mutual waiver of the right to disclosure, particularly when the parties have unequal bargaining power

There is no easy substitute for reading the cases and checking the legislation, but if you follow the above guidelines and check the terms of s 90G(1) Family Law Act 1975 (or s 90UJ(1) for de facto couples) as well as the section that the agreement is made under (e.g. s 90B for pre-nuptial agreements), you will be on the right track.

 

Jacqueline Campbell, partner, Forte Family Lawyers, and accredited family law specialist.

This article uses some material written for publication in Wolters Kluwer/CCH Australian Family Law and Practice. The material is used with the kind permission of Wolters Kluwer.

 

Want to find out more? Register for the LIV's Family Law CPD Intensive on 21 March where Jacqueline Campbell will be speaking on Duress and Influence: An update on financial agreements. The intensive will also cover evidentiary issues in family law proceedings, resolving disputes in family law, ethical considerations for family lawyers and more. For more information, see here.


Views expressed on liv.asn.au (Website) are not necessarily endorsed by the Law Institute of Victoria Ltd (LIV).

The information, including statements, opinions, documents and materials contained on the Website (Website Content) is for general information purposes only. The Website Content does not take into account your specific needs, objectives or circumstances, and it is not legal advice or services. Any reliance you place on the Website Content is at your own risk.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, the LIV excludes all liability for any loss or damage of any kind (including special, indirect or consequential loss and including loss of business profits) arising out of or in connection with the Website Content and the use or performance of the Website except to the extent that the loss or damage is directly caused by the LIV’s fraud or wilful misconduct.

Be the first to comment