In brief — Your rights are limited

If you have pre­vi­ous­ly signed a prenup­tial or post­nup­tial agree­ment and no longer agree to its terms, your rights are very limited.


Bind­ing Finan­cial Agreements

Pre or post­nup­tial agree­ments are known as Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ments. Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ments allow par­ties to con­tract out of the Fam­i­ly Law Act and come to their own agree­ment as to how their prop­er­ty will be divid­ed if the mar­riage breaks down.

Two pos­si­ble cours­es of action

If you are no longer hap­py with the terms of a Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment there are two cours­es of action avail­able to you.

One is to ter­mi­nate the Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment by agree­ment with your spouse. This can either be by enter­ing into a new Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment or by exe­cut­ing a Ter­mi­na­tion Agree­ment together.

The oth­er pos­si­ble course is to apply to the court to have the Agree­ment set aside.

Set­ting aside a Bind­ing Finan­cial Agreement

The cir­cum­stances where a court will set aside a Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment are lim­it­ed to the following:

  • The Agree­ment was obtained by fraud, for exam­ple, where one of the par­ties to the Agree­ment did not give full dis­clo­sure, or the Agree­ment was entered into to defeat the claims of creditors
  • The Agree­ment is void, void­able or unen­force­able. This will require reliance on con­trac­tu­al prin­ci­ples, for exam­ple, whether there was duress when enter­ing into the Agreement
  • Cir­cum­stances have arisen that now make it imprac­ti­cal to car­ry out the terms of the Agreement
  • Since the Agree­ment was made, there has been a mate­r­i­al change in cir­cum­stances relat­ing to the care, wel­fare and devel­op­ment of a child of the mar­riage and the child and/​or par­ent who will have the care and respon­si­bil­i­ty for the child will suf­fer hard­ship if the Agree­ment is not set aside
  • When the Agree­ment was made, a par­ty engaged in con­duct that was unconscionable
  • The Agree­ment cov­ers a super­an­nu­a­tion inter­est that is unable to be split and if the Agree­ment cov­ers a pay­ment flag on a super­an­nu­a­tion inter­est and there is no rea­son­able like­li­hood that the flag would be ter­mi­nat­ed by a flag lift­ing agreement
Divi­sion of assets

There are no require­ments for the Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment to pro­vide for a fair divi­sion of the assets on the break­down of the mar­riage, unlike the Fam­i­ly Law Act, which requires the court to con­sid­er whether the pro­posed orders are just and equi­table (rea­son­able) in the cir­cum­stances. In sum­ma­ry, if a per­son has signed a Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment and they no longer agree to the terms, it is impor­tant that they seek legal advice as to whether the Agree­ment itself com­plies with the leg­isla­tive require­ments of a Bind­ing Finan­cial Agree­ment and if not, whether it can be ter­mi­nat­ed or set aside.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Own­ers Cor­po­ra­tions / Asso­ci­a­tions now sub­ject to Unfair Con­tract Terms 

Under the new stra­ta law reforms com­menc­ing 1 July 2025 (the Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (No. 14) NSW) a key change…

Unfair con­tract terms in out­dat­ed stan­dard form con­tracts could cost you a fine of $50 mil­lion (Com­pa­nies) or $2.5 mil­lion (Indi­vid­u­als)

If you have not reviewed your stan­dard form con­struc­tion con­tracts since 9 Novem­ber 2023 (when the amend­ed Com­pe­ti­tion and Con­sumer Act…

Impor­tant Work­place Rela­tions Changes Effec­tive 1 July 2025

Employ­ers and employ­ees alike should be aware of impor­tant changes in the work­place rela­tions are­na, effec­tive 1 July 2025. From that date:the high income…

In the News

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 27 June 2025

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ABC may face sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 26 June 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“ABC may face ​‘sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after ​‘can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Pro­posed non-com­pete ban could back­fire on work­ers, firm warns”, pub­lished in Lawyers Week­ly on 20 May 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Pro­posed non-com­pete ban could back­fire on work­ers, firm warns”, pub­lished in Lawyers Week­ly…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information