Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ

THORNE APPELLANT

AND

KENNEDY RESPONDENT

Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 8 November 2017 B14/2017

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia made on 26 September 2016 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

3. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Family Court of Australia

Representation

M J Foley with P J Woods for the appellant (instructed by Somerville Laundry Lomax)

R G Lethbridge SC with G C Eldershaw and D Birch for the respondent (instructed by Jones Mitchell Lawyers)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Thorne v Kennedy

Family law – Financial agreements – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VIIIA – Pre-nuptial agreement – Post-nuptial agreement – Where fiancé wealthy – Where fiancée had no substantial assets – Where fiancée moved to Australia for purposes of marriage – Where fiancée had no community or connections in Australia – Where fiancée relied on fiancé for all things – Where pre-nuptial agreement provided to fiancée shortly before wedding – Where fiancé told fiancée that if she did not sign agreement wedding would not go ahead – Where independent solicitor advised fiancée against signing – Where pre-nuptial agreement signed – Where substantially identical post-nuptial agreement signed – Whether agreements voidable for duress, undue influence, or unconscionable conduct – Whether primary judge's reasons adequate.

Words and phrases – "adequate reasons", "duress", "financial agreement", "illegitimate pressure", "independent legal advice", "maintenance order", "post-nuptial agreement", "pre-nuptial agreement", "property adjustment", "special disadvantage", "unconscionable conduct", "undue influence", "vitiating factor".