Right by your side** - Key rules for when a prenup will fail

Previous View posts have looked at various cases where a binding financial agreement (BFA) has been held to be ineffective.

The case of Hoult v Hoult (2013) 276 FLR 412 arguably provides the best summary of the key rules in this regard.

In considering whether the wife could avoid the terms of a BFA due to not having received independent advice the court confirmed -

1. the parties need only have received independent legal advice on the document before the BFA will be assumed to be valid - the utility or content of the legal advice and indeed whether it was even understood are not relevant issues in determining whether the test is met;
2. the certificate of advice issued by each lawyer will generally be sufficient evidence that advice has been given, unless the resisting party can show evidence that creates doubt about the conclusion that would otherwise be drawn from the certificate.
3. if a party can show that there is a legitimate issue as to whether independent advice has been given then the onus of proving that the advice was in fact given is effectively 'reversed' and it is the task of the party wanting to have the BFA upheld who must satisfy the court. This is because the legislation provides that a BFA is binding 'if, and only, if' the listed requirements are all proved.
4. therefore the party to a relationship wanting to rely on a BFA must establish the existence of all required matters.

Similarly, in the case of Warrick and Mia [2018] FamCA 426, a provision which stated 'the assets and personal effect (sic) which are held in both parties’ names acquired after the marriage shall be property of both parties and should be divided between the parties on a contribution basis' was held to be so unclear that it was unenforceable; making the entire agreement also void.

This was because the phrase was an operative term and it was impossible based on the way the document was drafted to determine if 'contribution' related to non-financial as well as financial aspects.

As usual, please make contact if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Eurythmics song ‘Right by your side’.

View here:

When tomorrow comes** - A bankruptcy case study example

Following last week’s post, this week we explore one example of a factual scenario we have been asked to assist with that highlights the importance of advisers working collaboratively in this area to deliver value to clients is as follows:

1. An accountant had provided a written recommendation to a willmaker that testamentary trusts should be included in their will for asset protection purposes - this advice included a specific recommendation in relation to 1 beneficiary who had a history of financial misadventure in business activities.
2. The advice was provided to the willmaker's long-standing, although unspecialised, lawyer who dismissed the recommendation for testamentary trusts on the basis that it was an 'unnecessary complication that accountants and financial planners push as part of their product sales'.
3. At the time of the willmaker's death, the relevant son was indeed bankrupt.
4. In working to discharge their duties, the executors of the will asked us to assist in obtaining probate of the will and also confirm that they were obliged to pay the bankrupt beneficiary's entitlements to the trustee in bankruptcy. We were able to obtain probate and also confirm the duty that the executor was obligated to pay to the trustee in bankruptcy.
5. The executors also sought advice from specialist litigation lawyers as to whether the accountant or the lawyer could be potentially liable for failing to ensure that the willmaker included a testamentary trust in their will.
6. The specialist litigation advice suggested that the prospects of recovering any damages were in fact quite low for the bankrupt beneficiary.
7. The primary reason for this was that if a testamentary trust had been used, then the bankrupt beneficiary would have simply been 1 of many potential beneficiaries, and the only 'asset' that they would have received would have been the right to due administration of the testamentary trust. This right to due administration would arguably have no monetary value and therefore the damages awarded on suing the lawyer and accountant would have probably only been nominal.

The above conclusion was not ultimately tested through the court system. It would therefore seem an unnecessarily risky approach for advisers to dismiss the benefits of testamentary trusts for bankrupt beneficiaries on the basis that they may not be liable if their advice is later shown to be inappropriate.

Key points to note

The need to take active steps to protect assets and wealth, as well as concerns with the overall effectiveness of the steps taken, are not new concerns.

Arguably however, those concerns have never been taken more seriously by a greater number of people than they are currently, particularly in relation to superannuation death benefits.

The recent case law in this area is a timely reminder of the need to ensure comprehensive asset protection strategies are implemented as part of an integrated tax and estate planning exercise.

The above post is based on the article we had published originally in the Weekly Tax Bulletin.

As usual, please make contact if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Eurythmics song ‘When tomorrow comes'.

View here:

Appointors (or sisters) doing it for themselves **

Last week's post considered the ability of a trustee in bankruptcy to exercise the powers of an appointor or principal of a family trust who is bankrupt as their personal property.

A related issue that has been the subject of many years of debate is whether the holder of an appointor role can exercise it so as to appoint themselves.

For many years, the case of Re Skeats' Settlement (1889) 42 Ch D 522 has been seen as the leading decision, and it confirmed that an appointor could not appoint themselves as trustee. In particular the case held that '...the universal rule is that a man should not be judge in his own case; that he should not decide that he is the best possible person, and say that he ought to be the trustee'.

This blanket prohibition has however been iterated over the years and, subject always to the provisions of the relevant trust deed, the position now appears to be that the trustee appointment power is a species of special ‘fiduciary power’ that must be exercised for the benefit of objects of the trust.

This means that an appointor may appoint themselves (or a company they control) as trustee of a trust, as long as it is not for fraudulent purposes and permitted under the deed.

An appointor choosing to appoint themselves as trustee will however only by permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’, where the court is assured that the trusts will be executed in the interests of the beneficiaries.

The decision in Australian Conservation Services v Liladel Holdings [2017] ACTSC 162, provides a concise summary of the rules in this area.

As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** for the trainspotters, 'Sisters are doin' it for themselves' is a song from 1985 by the band the Eurythmics, listen hear (sic) -