Statutory requirements for all financial agreements
Married parties' agreements
De facto and same sex relationship agreements
Part VIIIA — Financial Agreements was inserted into the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) in 2000 and sets out the provisions that govern the making of private agreements, called “financial agreements” or “binding financial agreements”, between parties. In 2009 Pt VIIIAB — Financial Agreements was inserted to extend the application of financial agreements to those either considering entering into or exiting a de facto relationship.
Section 4AA of the FLA outlines the factors which may indicate the existence of a de facto relationship where a couple lives together on a genuine domestic basis.
Every financial agreement must clearly identify under which provision it is made, although following Piper and Mueller (2015) 54 Fam LR 369, it is possible that one document may incorporate an agreement made under two different sections. In that case, the parties were in a de facto relationship but intending to marry and the agreement referred to ss 90UC and 90B.
The significant provisions are:
- •Pt VIIIA — Financial agreements between heterosexual and same sex couples:
- ◦intending to marry (s 90B);
- ◦who are married and who may either be not separated, or have separated (s 90C); or
- ◦who are divorced (s 90D); and
- •Pt VIIIAB — Financial agreements between heterosexual and same sex couples who are intending:
- ◦intending to enter into a de facto relationship (s 90UB);
- ◦in a de facto relationship (s 90UC); or
- ◦are separated: s 90UD.
Financial agreements oust the jurisdiction of the court to make orders with respect to matters dealt with in them. The jurisdiction is not ousted in the same way under Pt VIIIA as under Pt VIIIAB. Division 2 of Pt VIIIAB, which deals with maintenance, and property of de facto couples does not apply to the following matters listed in s 90SA(1) if they are dealt with in the agreement:
Financial agreements between married partiesPart VIII of the FLA which deals with property and spousal maintenance of married couples, does not apply to:
- •financial matters to which a financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement applies; or
- •financial resources to which a financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement applies. See s 71A(1) of the FLA.
The phrase “financial matters” is defined in s 4(1) as:
- •in relation to the parties to a marriage — matters with respect to:
- ◦the maintenance of one of the parties;
- ◦the property of those parties or of either of them; or
- ◦the maintenance of children of the marriage; and
- •in relation to the parties to a de facto relationship — any or all, of the following matters:
- ◦the maintenance of one of the parties;
- ◦the distribution of the property of the parties or of either of them; or
- ◦the distribution of any other financial resources of the parties or of either of them.
The matters which can be dealt with in a financial agreement are different under Pts VIIIA and VIIIAB as a consequence of the different wording and construction of the ousting provisions. Section 90SA reflects those financial matters which a court may not consider in a binding financial agreement between de facto parties. However, a party is not prevented from commencing proceedings if the agreement is found not to be binding. Notably the s 90SA, FLA provisions do not deal with the maintenance of children of the relationship.
Practice Tip: Financial agreements are frequently known as “binding financial agreements” (BFAs) even though that term is not used in the legislation. Although there are many instances of courts setting aside agreements, having found them to not bind the parties, provided all the requirements under s 90G, FLA are met, parties signing such a private financial agreement should understand that they will be bound by the terms of their agreement.
Under s 90KA, FLA a party can seek to enforce the terms of an agreement and a court can find that it would be unjust and inequitable to enforce the terms if the agreement were not enforced.
Financial agreements between de facto partnersPart VIIIA was substantially expanded in 2009 by the insertion of Pt VIIIAB. Division 4 of that part relates specifically to financial agreements. The division extends coverage of the FLA in relation to financial agreements to include financial agreements between de facto partners in all states except Western Australia. It applies to couples who are in a relationship, or whose relationship ended, after 1 March 2009 (or 1 July 2010 in the case of South Australia). The provisions allow for the making of a financial agreement between de facto couples who:
- •are contemplating a de facto relationship (s 90UB);
- •are in an existing de facto relationship (s 90UC); and
- •have separated on or after 1 March 2009: s 90UD.
For a Pt VIIIAB financial agreement to be binding it must meet the requirements of s 90UJ(1), which are similar to the s 90G(1) requirements for Pt VIIIA financial agreements. If a financial agreement does not meet the requirements of s 90UJ(1) it may still be binding under s 90UJ(1A), (similar to s 90G(1A)) if the court finds it is unjust and unequitable for the agreement not to be binding.
The recitals of a Pt VIIIAB financial agreement usually include the commencement date of the relationship and, if relevant, when it ended. As one party may later challenge the length of the relationship, (or even the existence of it), the recitals ought to ideally address the circumstances of the relationship. Even if a Pt VIIIAB financial agreement is later set aside, the recitals may still be useful.
The FLA specifically provides that “a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship”: s 4AA(5), FLA. It is more difficult, but not impossible, for a de facto relationship to be established whilst another de facto relationship is on foot. For example, it is harder to show mutual commitment to a shared life under s 4AA(2)(f) and the public aspects of the relationship under s 4AA(2)(i). See Jonah and White [2012] FamCAFC 200; (2012) 48 Fam LR 562.
Unlike married couples, when commencing proceedings, de facto parties are required to have a geographic connection with the jurisdiction under ss 90RG and 90SD in respect of any claim.
In Western Australia, de facto partners may enter into financial agreements pursuant to Pt 5A, Div 3 of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA), which allows for agreements between couples who:
- •are contemplating a de facto relationship (s 205ZN);
- •are in an existing de facto relationship (s 205ZO);
- •have separated on or after 1 December 2002: s 205ZP.
The definition of “de facto relationship” includes same sex couples: ss 4AA(1) and 13A Interpretation Act 1984 (WA). See De facto law under the Family Law Act. See also De facto law — state based.
Practice Tip: The Family Court of Western Australia will only have jurisdiction to determine the property settlement and maintenance rights of couples in a de facto relationship if:
- •one or both of the parties were resident in Western Australia on the day the application was made;
- •either both parties have resided in Western Australia for at least one third of the duration of the relationship or substantial contributions (of the kind mentioned in s 205ZG(4)(a)) have been made in the state by the person making the application; and
- •one of the following applies:
- ◦there has been a de facto relationship between the parties for at least 2 years;
- ◦there is a child of the relationships (under the age of 18) and failure to deal with the matter would result in a serious injustice to the partner caring or responsible for that child; or
- ◦the person making the application has made substantial contributions (of the kind mentioned in s 205ZG(4)(a), (b) or (c)) and failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to that person.
The statutory requirements for a financial agreement to be binding on the parties in marital relationships are identical and are found in s 90G, FLA. The statutory requirements for a financial agreement to be binding on the parties in de facto relationships (in all states except Western Australia) are identical and are found in s 90UJ, FLA. The statutory requirements for financial agreements to be binding on the parties in de facto relationships in Western Australia largely mirror the provisions in the FLA and are found in s 205ZS of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).
An advantage to a financial agreement is that no court proceedings are required; however, to ensure that parties are not coerced into entering into an agreement that is not favourable to them and is less than they would obtain should the matter proceed through the court, the FLA and Family Court Act 1997 (WA) require strict compliance with a number of procedural matters including (generally) the requirements that:
- •the agreement must be in writing;
- •independent legal advice be provided to each party about the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party and about its advantages and disadvantages; and
- •the legal advisor for each party certify that legal advice has been provided to their client. See s 90G, FLA.
Although a legal practitioner must give the appropriate advice on the effect of the agreement on their client, they no longer need to be satisfied that they believe the agreement is fair and equitable.
A financial agreement that is held to be binding will oust the jurisdiction of the court in so far as the provisions of the financial agreement allow. The relevant statutory provisions are s 90K (s 90UM in relation to de facto relationships) and s 205ZV of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) in relation to de facto relationships in Western Australia. A financial agreement that is not held to be binding can be set aside by the court see ss 90G and s 90K in relation to marital relationships; ss 90UJ and 90UM in relation to de facto relationships; ss 205ZS and 205ZV in relation to de facto relationships in Western Australia.
Financial agreements that are binding only oust the court's jurisdiction with respect to financial matters or resources expressly dealt with in the agreement unless the relevant statutory provisions apply. Those provision are:
- •s 90F (in relation to marital relationships);
- •s 90UI (in relation to de facto relationships); or
- •s 205ZR (of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) in relation to de facto relationships in Western Australia).
For example, some financial agreements only deal with spousal maintenance, not property, or if they do deal with property it may only deal with some of the parties’ property (eg it is common for a financial agreement to seek to exclude a particular asset from a property settlement with the balance of the parties’ asset pool to be determined by the court). A financial agreement that is set aside has the effect of not affecting the jurisdiction of the Family Court to make whatever orders for maintenance or property settlement is has the power to do. Sometimes the financial agreement may be relevant to proceedings, eg the recitals may be evidence of the parties’ income, contributions or property pool was at a certain time or the terms of the agreement may be relevant when the Court is considering whether it is just and equitable to make orders pursuant to s 79 of the FLA.
There have been many cases heard in the Full Court of the Family Court in relation to what “strict compliance” is. Almost all cases heard deal with agreements not complying with s 90G of the FLA or complying with an outdated s 90G.
In the matter of Black v Black (2008) 38 Fam LR 503, the Full Court overruled a previous decision of single judge not to set aside a financial agreement where there had not been strict compliance with s 90G. The basis of this decision was that the effect of the agreement was to oust the jurisdiction of a Family Court to make financial orders and therefore strict compliance with the formal requirements of s 90G of the FLA was required.
After the decision of Black v Black, amendments to s 90G came into effect as a result of the introduction of the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Act 2009 (Cth) on 4 January 2010. The amendments provided that even if there is not strict compliance with the requirements of s 90G(1), as long as the agreement is signed by all parties and it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement was not binding, then the court may make an order under s 90G(1B) declaring that the agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement.
Below is a comparative table of the main provisions relating to financial agreements in relation to:
- •married couples in all states and territories;
- •de facto couples in all states and territories except Western Australia; and
- •de facto couples in Western Australia.
Married couples | De facto couples in all states except Western Australia | De facto couples in Western Australia | |
Generally | Pt VIIIA, Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) | Pt VIIIAB, Div 4, Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) | Pt 5A, Div 3, Family Court Act 1997 (WA) |
Financial agreements before marriage/de facto relationship | s 90B | s 90UB | s 205ZN |
Financial agreements during marriage/de facto relationship | s 90C | s 90UC | s 205ZO |
Financial agreements after divorce/breakdown of de facto relationship | s 90D | s 90UD | s 205ZP |
Certain provisions in financial agreements | s 90F | s 90UI | s 205ZR |
When financial agreements are binding | s 90G | s 90UJ | s 205ZS |
Effect of death of a party | s 90H | s 90UK | s 205ZT |
Setting aside financial agreements or termination agreements | s 90K | s 90UM | s 205ZV |
In 2000 Pt VIIIA was inserted into the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) and ss 86 and 87 agreements were replaced by financial agreements. Specifically, the new Part provided for three different types of financial agreements relating to married persons, being:
- • in contemplation of marriage (s 90B) — see Before marriage;
- • during a marriage but before divorce (s 90C) — see During marriage and after separation; and
- • after divorce (s 90D) — see After divorce.
In March 2009, the FLA was amended with the introduction of Pts VIIIA and VIIIAB, FLA which now apply to de facto couples who wish to enter financial agreements.
- • in contemplation of a de facto relationship (s 90UB);
- • during a de facto relationship (s 90UC); and
- • after the breakdown of a de facto relationship: s 90UD.
Since December 2017 the legislation applies equally to same sex marriages and de facto same sex relationships.
Section 71A excludes financial agreements from the application of Pt VIII, FLA in respect of an alteration of property interests. “Financial agreements” refers to agreements made under ss 90B, 90C or s 90D which are binding and which relate to either “financial matters” or “financial resources”.
Section 4 defines “financial matters” in relation to married parties refer to the maintenance or property of one of the parties; or the maintenance of children of the marriage.
For a financial agreement to be binding, however, it must also comply with s 90G, FLA.
Purpose of a financial agreementThe purpose of a financial agreement is to enable parties to decide how their assets are to be divided in the event of a separation of divorce without the intervention of a court. Each party to an agreement must receive independent legal advice prior to signing. That advice by a legal practitioner should refer to the effect, advantages and disadvantages of the agreement on the rights of that party at the time of making the agreement.
An alternative to entering a financial agreement on separation or divorce is by way of consent orders filed through the Family Court of Australia which are intended to finalise the parties’ financial relationship. Parties do not need to obtain a certificate of independent legal advice when making consent orders but they are subject to the scrutiny of the court. Arguably, consent orders are also more difficult to vary or overturn once made.
Where parties wish to make arrangements either before or during a relationship, then they must enter a financial agreement and seek to enforce the agreement within two years of a de facto relationship ending, or within one year from the date of divorce. Although the intention of introducing financial agreements was to oust the jurisdiction of the court, in fact, the court retains wide powers to vary, rectify, enforce or set aside an agreement when the terms of an agreement are in dispute.
Advantages and disadvantages of financial agreementsOne of the advantages of a financial agreement is that no documents are filed with the court and, therefore, both parties' financial circumstances remain private and confidential. In order to avoid the agreement being set aside, both parties are obliged to make a full and frank disclosure of their financial circumstances at the time of signing the agreement. Fraud (which includes non-disclosure of a material matter for instance in relation to a party's financial circumstances is one of the grounds to set aside an agreement: s 90K or s 90UM.
Disputed financial agreements between married parties are often characterized by circumstances which give rise to claims of duress and unconscionable conduct related to (usually) the wife being pressured to sign an agreement shortly before the wedding day. See for example, Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49. The court may also set aside an agreement for other reasons such as undue influence, to avoid the claim of a creditor, or for impracticability.
A financial agreement might be preferable to an application for consent orders where the parties’ financial circumstances are complex (for instance involving entities, trusts and third parties) or where a delayed settlement may be more mutually beneficial to one or both parties — instead of a quick “fire sale” property settlement which is commonly provided by an application for consent orders. This arises as a result of the court having a duty to make such orders as “will finally determine the financial relationships” between parties to a marriage, at the time of considering whether to approve the proposed consent orders: s 81. Further the court also has a duty to make such orders as will “avoid further proceedings between them”. Whereas a financial agreement does not require the approval of a court prior to signing by the parties.
Disadvantages of financial agreements are:
- • the financial or other circumstances of the parties can change significantly over time. It is difficult to predict what those changes might be. A financial agreement can be inflexible in these circumstances, although clauses can be drafted to increase the flexibility of the clauses to account for changes in circumstances (eg, use of formulas and alternative clauses etc);
- • the court has shown a willingness to read agreements down: Black v Black (2008) 38 Fam LR 503 and Kostres v Kostres (2009) 42 Fam LR 336;
- • the court will determine whether it is fair and reasonable: Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49; and
- • there is a potential that a legal adviser who does not cover all eventualities may be sued for professional negligence if an agreement proves unsatisfactory or is read down by a court.
A valid binding agreement pursuant to ss 90B, 90C or s 90D is determinative of a party's rights on marriage breakdown. It may be enforced in a court having jurisdiction under the FLA, or for de facto parties in Western Australia the Family Court Act 1997 (WA), in the same manner as if it were an order of that court.
A financial agreement, unless set aside, continues in operation after the death of the party and is binding on that party’s trustee: s 90H. The effect of a financial agreement on a party’s ability to claim against the estate of the other party will depend on how that is treated in the relevant law of each State. For example, in NSW a financial agreement does not preclude a party from making a claim under the ,Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The case of Estate of late Fan v Lok (2015) 54 Fam LR 135; [2015] FamCA 300; BC201550327 for example, confirmed that the terms of the agreement were binding even after the wife had died.
In Victoria, changes to the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) which commenced in January 2015 provide that a person will be eligible to claim against the estate of the deceased includes a former spouse or domestic partner at the time of the deceased’s death who would have been able to take proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Practitioners should obtain advice from a succession law accredited specialist in their State when drafting the agreement.
Following the 2008 decision in Black v Black (2008) 38 Fam LR 503 in which the Full Court held that a binding financial agreement must strictly comply with the requirements of s 90G, the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Act 2009 (Cth) was introduced. Subsection 90G(1A) was added to provide a basis for ensuring the validity of an agreement if not all technical requirements are met, while the binding nature of these agreements is maintained. This provision permits the court to determine on an “unjust and inequitable” basis whether an agreement should be enforced if a party would be disadvantaged by its being set aside. Typical strict requirements that have not been met, include whether one party received “independent legal advice” where it was obtained and paid for by the other party, or where the legal advice certificate referred to another person.
In determining whether an agreement is binding on the parties, the court is not required to determine whether the terms of the bargain offend the “notions of fairness”: Hoult v Hoult [2013] FamCAFC 109. Technical defects such as the provision under which the agreement is made will not defeat the intentions of the parties to be bound by their agreement: Senior v Anderson (2011) 45 Fam LR 540. Parties who are in a de facto relationship are not prevented from entering a financial agreement which is made under s 90B (in contemplation of marriage) and s 90C (when married) provided the agreement complies with s 90G.
An existing financial agreement may not be amended. Rather it may be terminated or be replaced by a new agreement. In both cases, independent legal advice must be provided before signing.
An agreement comes into effect once the parties separate or divorce and either party signs and serves a separation declaration. Where either party disputes the validity of an agreement, they can apply to the court seeking to either enforce or set aside the agreement under ss 90K and 90KA.
See During marriage and after separation.
During marriage and after separationParties who are married but wish to secure their separate financial positions should their marriage breakdown can do so by entering into an agreement pursuant to s 90C of the FLA. Parties who are separated but not divorced are also able to make an agreement under this provision in order to reduce prospects of future litigation, particularly in relation to any transfers of real property.
See During marriage and after separation.
After divorceParties who have already divorced may enter a financial agreement to adjust their property interests. Practitioners should consider whether consent orders may be appropriate in such cases. Such an agreement can include transfers of real property as well as spousal maintenance but a separate child support agreement may also be appropriate.
See After divorce.
See also Overview — Child support.
The Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth) (“the De Facto Act”) inserted a new division into the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) — Pt VIIIAB — which commenced on 1 March 2009 (and from 1 July 2010 South Australia) and deals with financial matters relating to de facto relationships in all states except Western Australia. In Western Australia, Pt 5A of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) (FCWA) deals with financial matters for de facto relationships which commenced in 2002. In Western Australia the FCWA continues to govern how financial matters for de facto parties are dealt with and any reference in the content below about the FLA should be taken to mean “applying in all States and Territories except Western Australia”.
Financial agreements for de facto parties under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)Since 1 March 2009 (or 1 July 2010 or South Australia), s 90UB(1), s 90UC(1) and s 90UD(1) has provided for parties, either wishing to enter into, continue or leave a de facto relationships to enter into agreements in relation to financial matters. In Western Australia, the relevant provisions are ss 205ZN, 205ZO and 205ZP of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA). (For the definition of a de facto relationship, see De facto law under the Family Law Act 1975 and De facto law — state based).
There are geographical requirements which must be met for parties to de facto relationships to enter into financial agreements: s 90UA FLA. That is, spouse parties can make a Pt VIIIAB financial agreement only if they are ordinarily resident in a participating jurisdiction (s 90RA) at the time of making the agreement. Note that this geographical requirement differs from that required for de facto relationship applications seeking property adjustment and/or maintenance: s 90SD or s 90SK.
Although there is a separate Part of the FLA for de facto couples, the court has approached the determination of financial matters for a de facto couple in the same way as married couples in terms of property division, maintenance, superannuation splitting and other such matters. The requirements for a de facto or same-sex relationship agreement are the same as the requirements of a married or soon-to-be-married couple and are set out in ss 90UJ(1)(b) and 90UJ(c). These requirements include:
- •that the parties sign the agreement;
- •that they receive independent legal advice about the effect of the agreement on their rights;
- •that they receive a statement to that effect from a legal practitioner; and
- •that they receive a statement of independent legal advice from the practitioner on behalf of the other party.
In Western Australia, the legislation regarding de facto couples, including same sex couples, is almost identical to the provisions of the FLA. The main differences relate to the treatment of superannuation and minor differences in relation to financial agreements. Sections 205ZN, 205ZO and 205ZP of the FCWA provide for parties, either wishing to enter into or continue in a de facto relationship or leaving a former de facto relationships to enter into agreements in relation to financial matters in much as the same terms as the FLA provisions.
Note however the different definition of what constitutes a de facto relationships in the FLA compared to the FCWA. Also see Truman v Clifton for a review of the law concerning de facto relationship in Western Australia by Thackray J, Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia and the absence of an equivalent provision to s 90G(1) and 90DA(4) in the FCWA.Notes
Truman v Clifton [2010] FCWA 91
Financial agreements made pursuant to the FCWA (that is, agreements for de facto parties in Western Australia who are not contemplating marriage) may include a separation declaration but there is no requirement to have one. When drafting an agreement, it is prudent to include provision for one to provide clarity as to when the relationship has broken down.
Financial agreements generallyA financial agreement, unless set aside, continues in operation after the death of the party.
Some advantages of a financial agreement are:
- •there is no need for approval by the court;
- •there is no requirement that the agreement must be fair and reasonable or even proper for it to take effect.
A valid binding agreement pursuant to ss 90UB, 90UC or 90UD, FLA or ss 205ZS, 205ZN or 205ZO, FCWA for Western Australia is determinative of a party's rights on breakdown of the de facto relationship. It may be enforced in a court having jurisdiction under the relevant act in the same manner as if it were an order of that court.
Disadvantages of financial agreements are:
- •The financial or other circumstances of the parties can change significantly over time. It is difficult to predict what those changes might be. A financial agreement may be inflexible in these circumstances.
- •The court has shown a willingness to read agreements down: Black v Black (2008) 38 Fam LR 503 and Kostres v Kostres (2009) 42 Fam LR 336.
- •The court will determine whether it is fair and reasonable: Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 350 ALR; BC201709420.
- •there is a potentiality for a legal adviser who does not cover all eventualities to be sued for professional negligence if an agreement proves unsatisfactory or is read down by a court.
Section 90UM or s 205ZV, FCWA sets out the grounds upon which equitable principles may be applied to set aside, rectify or enforce an agreement. Often parties will commence an action to set aside an agreement by asking the court to declare either that a de facto relationship exists or does not exist before seeking orders to enforce or set aside the agreement. Where an agreement is set aside, assuming that the court finds that it has jurisdiction, the parties can apply for orders under s 79, FLA or s 205ZG for an adjustment of their property entitlements. Where a court finds there is supporting evidence for allegations of duress or unconscionable conduct, this may be sufficient for the agreement to be set aside.
As in agreements between married parties, de facto parties may make a financial agreement that can be found to be non-binding if does not meet the requirements of s 90UJ, FLA. Strict compliance is no longer necessary but it is essential for the court to find that it would be unjust and inequitable for an agreement to be set aside.Notes
A financial agreement cannot be varied. If amendments are sought to an agreement already existing, a fresh agreement must be made: ss 90UB(4), 90UC(4), 90UD(4) and 90UL, FLA and ss 205ZN(4), 205ZO(4) and 205ZP(4) of the FCWA.
If for any reason both parties no longer wish to be bound by the agreement and wish for it to be terminated, the parties must enter a termination agreement stating that the agreement is no longer in force.
See the following: