Event and Time
Event Description
- Date of Original BFA Execution: August 22, 2019
- Date of Separation: August 26, 2016
- Date of Divorce: 2018
- Date of Rectification Order by Primary Judge: January 31, 2023
- Date of Appeal Decision: May 29, 2023
Application and Claims
- The appeal concerns rectification of a binding financial agreement (BFA) that initially stipulated an equal division of property proceeds, later altered to a 75%/25% division favoring the respondent.
- The appellant challenged the rectification order, arguing that rectification was not warranted due to insufficient evidence of a common intention to effect the stated division.
Judicial Decisions
- A primary judge rectified the BFA to allocate 75% of sale proceeds to the respondent and 25% to the appellant.
- Upon appeal, the court found that the rectification was unsupported by evidence of common intention, thus allowing the appellant's appeal and setting aside the primary judge's order.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Appellant’s Position:
- Argued the original agreement specified an equal division of property proceeds (clause 11.7.5). - Contended there was no evidence or admission regarding a 75%/25% division. - Emphasized the role of the respondent as the solicitor who should have clarified the agreement during drafting.
- Respondent’s Position:
- Argued the division was agreed upon in a conversation on July 25, 2019. - Claimed that a document referred to as "MG11" evidenced mutual intention towards a 75%/25% split. - Presented a series of amendments made to the BFA indicating a deliberate shift towards the new division.