Abstract
A discussion of the High Court of Australia’s recent decision in Thorne v Kennedy with reference to the three vitiating factors discussed by the High Court: duress, undue influence and unconscionable conduct. It is suggested that the High Court left unclear the status of lawful act duress, and the overlap between duress and actual undue influence remains unclear. Moreover, it is also unclear how equitable principles interact with the provisions of the Family Law Act. The significance of independent legal advice and a post-nuptial binding financial agreement in this case is also discussed.
Barnett, Katy, Thorne v Kennedy: A Thorn in the Side of ‘Binding Financial Agreements’? (March 31, 2018). (2018) 31 Australian Journal of Family Law 183-193.
First posted 2018-06-15 06:34:43
Leave a Reply