Event and Time
Event Description
The case involves Mr. Daily (the husband) and Ms. Daily (the wife) concerning the validity of a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) signed on 21 July 2005. Following their separation in 2018, the wife sought to have the BFA set aside, claiming it lacked clarity and the husband's intentions were ambiguous. The husband, in turn, sought to enforce the BFA and claimed damages against their former solicitors for negligence.
Application and Claims
- Husband's Claims:
- A declaration that the BFA is binding or that it would be unjust or inequitable if it were not binding. - Claim for damages against the second respondent solicitors for breach of contract and/or negligence.
- Wife's Claims:
- A declaration that the BFA is not binding and should be set aside under provisions of s 90K(1)(d), s 90K(1)(b), and/or s 90K(1)(e) of the Family Law Act. - Request for property settlement orders pursuant to s 79 of the Act.
Judicial Decisions
The court found that the BFA was void for uncertainty and set it aside under s 90K(1)(d) and/or s 90KA of the Family Law Act 1975. The court allowed the matter to continue concerning the husband's claim for damages against the solicitors and scheduled further submissions on the question of quantum of damages.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Husband's Position:
- Asserts the BFA was to preserve separate properties and outlined equal sharing of jointly acquired property. - Claims to have followed legal advice and insists the BFA, despite being unsigned initially by the wife, reflects their joint intention. - Argues negligence on the part of solicitors led to the BFA's invalidity, resulting in financial loss.
- Wife's Position: