Divorce agreement. Wife and husband can not make settlement

Spouse Maintenance Order made by Wife Challenging Financial Agreement

Adam West ||

Time and time again, we see the value in ensuring that Financial Agreements (commonly referred to as ‘prenups’) are entered into between parties with care, fairness, and in a timely manner without pressure, to avoid any challenges further down the track.

In a recent case before the Family Court (Salvage & Fosse), a de facto wife (wife) applied to set aside a Financial Agreement that had been in place for many years on her assertion that:

  1. the Agreement was presented to her as being ‘not negotiable’;
  2. she was pressured and rushed to sign it;
  3. her lawyer’s advice was brief, with no opportunity to reflect;
  4. her de facto husband’s (husband) financial position was far superior; and,
  5. her English was poor

The wife also sought interim orders for spouse maintenance and what was described as a “litigation funding” order to enable her to pursue her case.

The parties were together for over 14 years with no children. The property pool was approximately $1.3 million, mainly been brought in by the husband. The wife had made significant contributions as a homemaker and cared for the husband. At separation, the wife was on an income tested pension, and the husband continued to provide financial support to her.

The Family Law Act provides that even with a Financial Agreement, the Court is not prevented from making a spouse maintenance order if the Court is satisfied that when the agreement came into effect, the party making the claim was unable to support themselves without an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.

It was on this basis that the trial judge made an interim order for spouse maintenance. The judge also made an order for litigation funding. The husband appealed.

The Full Court found that the Agreement came into effect when the parties separated, not when it was signed and, as such, the spouse maintenance order was correct as the wife was unable to support herself at that time. However, the order for litigation funding was set aside because the Full Court found that the judge ought to have evaluated the strength of the wife’s claim, the likely division of property if the Financial Agreement was set aside, and the costs.

If you are considering entering into a Financial Agreement, please do not hesitate to contact a member of Coleman Greig’s Family Law team today, who would be more than happy to assist you.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the content at the time of publication, information, regulations, services, and best practices may change over time. For more details, please read our full disclaimer.

Share:

Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.

Categories
Archives
Author

More posts

Juris what? What is accrued and cross-vested jurisdiction?

In family law matters, disputes sometimes involve issues that fall under both family law and other areas of law. The court may use either accrued jurisdiction or cross-vested jurisdiction to avoid separate court proceedings.

Forfeited…or not? When leases can be brought back to life

This article outlines the key principles and practical considerations relevant to relief against forfeiture. Forfeiture is when a tenant breaches a lease, a landlord may be entitled to terminate the lease and recover possession of the property.

Fair Work Commission increases minimum wage rates by 4.75%

The Fair Work Commission has confirmed a 4.75% increase to the national minimum wage and modern award rates from 1 July 2026, along with structural changes affecting entry-level classifications. This article outlines the key changes and practical considerations for employers.

modern slavery statement
Does your business need to give a modern slavery statement?

Modern slavery can taint the supply chain of any Australian business. To mitigate this risk the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) requires certain entities and encourages others to give annual modern slavery statements to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.