In the recent case of Pascot & Pascot [2011] FamCA 945, the Family Court has decided that a Financial Agreement should be set aside on the basis that there was no agreement between the parties. The wife understood she was signing an Agreement in exchange for the husband proceeding with the purchase of a house. In fact the husband had already purchased the house and did not disclose this to the wife. In the judgment, the Court considered contractual issues of offer and acceptance, misrepresentation, mistake, duress and undue influence. The Court found that there were multiple grounds for the Financial Agreement to be set aside.

See the decision at http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/judgments/First_Instance/FCOA_judge_fijudgements_2011_FamCA_945

The judgment detailed erroneous legal advice provided to the wife by her lawyer. It highlights the importance of obtaining expert legal advice from experienced and specialist family lawyers when negotiating and entering into a Financial Agreement.

If you are considering entering into a Financial Agreement, including a Pre-nuptial Agreement or have questions about the validity of an existing Financial Agreement, contact our family lawyers at Holding Redlich on 9321 9771. Wendy Jenkins, Paul Ross and Marita Bajinskis are Accredited Specialists in Family Law with expertise in all aspects of Financial Agreements.

In his article on the website, The Conversation, Richard Fletcher of University of Newcastle outlines the ongoing debate about the merits of shared care for children.

Shared care refers to parenting arrangements where children live for substantial time or equal time with each parent. Some people refer to children's living arrangements as 'custody'. 

A major research study, Growing Up in Australia, has been undertaken about the effect of shared care on children. Based on that research study, one organisation is now promoting the notion that infants under 2 years should not have any overnight periods away from their primary carer unless absolutely necessary. However, Richard Fletcher points out that the research study does not conclusively support that notion.

See the article at The Conversation on https://theconversation.edu.au/who-decides-whats-best-for-children-5131

For advice about shared care and parenting arrangements, telephone Holding Redlich on 03 9321 9771

On 1 March 2009, the laws changed in relation to the division of property for separating de facto couples.

The biggest change is that de facto couples are now being treated in the same way that married couples have been for years. De facto property disputes are now heard in the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.

What did the new laws change?

When deciding how assets, debts and superannuation of de facto couples should be divided, the Court now looks at:

• the contributions each person has made, including building up assets, providing financial support and caring for the family and household; and
• the future needs of each person, including ongoing care of children or others, earning capacity and other financial resources available to them.

Prior to the changed legislation, the Court only looked at contributions and ignored future needs for de facto partners. The division of assets between married couples has always looked at both these factors.

For more infomation about de facto property settlements see our brochure http://www.familylawyers-melbourne.com.au/images/stories/pdf/fin-settlement-for-defactos.pdf