Your selected location:
10 Nov 2017

Pre nuptial agreements were first made famous in the early two thousands by celebrities like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and the Kardashians. Famously, it was rumoured that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s pre-nuptial agreement included an “adultery clause” where Angelina Jolie allegedly got primary custody of the children if Brad Pitt was to ever stray while Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban’s pre-nuptial agreement allegedly includes a clause that absolves Nicole Kidman of any financial responsibility if Keith Urban were to ever use illegal drugs or drink to excess.

So are pre-nuptial agreements still a relationship insurance that policy people should consider? Absolutely! But, unfortunately for Mr Kennedy in the case of Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49, a little further thought into the circumstances surrounding the entry into the pre-nuptial agreement with Ms Thorne may have assisted him. On 8 November 2017, the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal from the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia by holding that the two financial agreements, a pre-nuptial agreement and post-nuptial agreement entered into by Mr Kennedy with Ms Thorne, should be set aside. While the facts of this case may not be of celebrity status, they are important for anyone who is entering a financial agreement to consider.

The story of this romance began in 2006 when Ms Thorne and Mr Kennedy met on the internet. At the time the parties met, Ms Thorne was 36 years old, living in the Middle East with no substantial assets. While, Mr Kennedy was 67 years old, living in Australia with assets worth between $18 – $24 million. He had 3 adult children.

In true whirlwind romance style, shortly after the parties met online, Mr Kennedy bought Ms Thorne expensive jewellery and travelled to meet Ms Thorne on several occasions including taking her on an extended holiday around Europe at which time he met her family. Perhaps in a little more of a modern day twist to the classic Cinderella style story, Mr Kennedy told Ms Thorne he would marry her but said at the same time he also said “you will have to sign paper. My money is for my children.”

Seven months after the parties met online, in February 2007, Ms Thorne moved to Australia to live in Mr Kennedy’s penthouse with the intention of getting married on 30 September 2007. Despite returning back to Australia with Ms Thorne in February, it was not until early August that Mr Kennedy instructed a solicitor to prepare a pre-nuptial agreement which it appears that Ms Thorne was not aware this was occurring.

Eleven days before the parties were due to get married; while other brides would be putting the final touches on their seating plans, Mr Kennedy had other ideas. Mr Kennedy told Ms Thorne they were going to see solicitors about signing an agreement. When Ms Thorne asked Mr Kennedy whether she was required to sign the agreement, Mr Kennedy told Ms Thorne that if she did not sign the agreement the wedding would not go ahead. Quite the romantic isn’t he?

By 20 September 2007, “Ms Thorne’s parents and sister had been flown to Australia from Eastern Europe and accommodated for the wedding by Mr Kennedy. Guests had been invited to the wedding. Ms Thorne’s dress had been made. The wedding reception had been booked.” Any bride could imagine the position that Ms Thorne was in at that time.

On 20 September 2007 when Mr Kennedy took Ms Thorne and her sister to see an independent solicitor (“Ms Harrison”), this was the first time that Ms Thorne had become aware of the contents of the pre-nuptial agreement (“the agreement”) that Mr Kennedy had prepared. Before you think that it was kind of Mr Kennedy to take Ms Thorne to see a solicitor to get advice about the agreement, think again. It is a requirement that both parties entering into a financial agreement receive independent legal advice about the effect of the financial agreement on their rights, and the advantages and disadvantages of the financial agreement to that party of entering into the agreement.

On 21 September 2007, Ms Harrison sent written advice to Ms Thorne, in which Ms Harrison said “I hold significant concerns that you are only signing this Agreement so that your wedding will not be called off. I urge you to reconsider your position as this Agreement is drawn to protect [Mr Kennedy’s] interests solely and in no way considers your interests.”

On 24 September 2007, Ms Harrison told Ms Thorne that “the agreement was the worst that she had ever seen…entirely inappropriate and that she told Ms Thorne that Ms Thorne should not sign it.”[3] Despite this clear advice, on 26 September 2007, four days before the parties were due to get married, Ms Thorne signed the agreement, which contained a recital requiring the parties to sign another agreement within 30 days. On 30 September 2007, the parties were married.

On 5 November 2007, Ms Thorne met with Ms Harrison again to get advice regarding the second agreement. Ms Harrison again advised Ms Thorne not to sign the second agreement and “Ms Harrison gained the impression that Ms Thorne was being pressured to sign the document.” It is not surprising that she gained that impression! Ms Thorne again ignored Ms Harrison’s advice and signed the agreement that day.

On 16 June 2011, less than 4 years after the parties were married Mr Kennedy signed a separation declaration. In August 2011, the parties’ whirlwind romance ended when they separated without children. Pursuant to the agreement, as they were married for more than 3 years, Ms Thorne was entitled to a payment of $50,000 from Mr Kennedy. When you consider the fact that Mr Kennedy was reported to be worth between $18 – $24 million, and had “brought Ms Thorne to Australia promising to look after her like “a queen”[5], this payment does not seem fair at all.

Ms Thorne commenced proceedings in April 2012 seeking to set aside the two agreements, an adjustment of property order of $1.1 million and a lump sum spousal maintenance order of $104,000. In May 2014, Mr Kennedy died during the trial at which time two of his adult children were substituted as a party in proceedings. In 2015, the Primary Judge set aside both agreements on the basis that there was duress and undue influence.

In a nutshell, the High Court held that Ms Thorne felt she had no other choice and was powerless to act in any way other than to sign the agreement due to the fact that “she was in Australia only in furtherance of their relationship. She left behind her life and minimal possessions…She brought no assets of substance to the relationship. If the relationship ended, she would have nothing. No job, no visa, no home, no place, no community. The consequences of the relationship being at an end would have significant and serious consequences to Ms Thorne. She would not be entitled to remain in Australia and she had nothing to return to anywhere else in the world.”

After the Primary Judge handed down her decision in 2015, Mr Kennedy’s representatives successfully appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. Ms Thorne then successfully appealed to the High Court of Australia where it was unanimously found that the agreements should be set aside for unconscionable conduct and a majority of the High Court (5 judges) held that Mr Kennedy had exercised undue influence over Ms Thorne.

So why does this matter? Well, if you are intending to enter a pre-nuptial agreement or post-nuptial agreement or binding financial agreement of any nature, it will be helpful to keep in mind the factors the High Court referred to while considering the existence of undue influence (at paragraph 60):

1.        Whether the agreement was offered on a basis that it was not subject to negotiation;

2.        The emotional circumstances in which the agreement was entered including any explicit or implicit threat to end a marriage or to end an engagement;

3.        Whether there was any time for careful reflection;

4.        The nature of the parties’ relationship;

5.        The relative financial positions of the parties; and

6.        The independent advice that was received and whether there was time to reflect on that advice.

In reality these factors are applicable in more areas of law than just family law; undue influence is applicable to all areas of law, which is part of the reason that this is a landmark judgment. If you still want to “holla we want pre nup” then be sensible, get legal advice and listen to the legal advice, which has always been the case when entering financial agreements.

This judgment is not  a “death knell” for pre-nuptial agreements and it is not going to “open the floodgates” as has been reported by a number of commentators, it is simply a timely reminder to all to take the requisite care when preparing or entering a binding financial agreement or any agreement for that matter. One of the High Court Judges, Nettle J summarised a logical view of Ms Thorne’s position well by saying that “in the scheme of things, it can hardly be supposed that a young woman in Ms Thorne’s position would be persuaded to abandon her life abroad and travel halfway around the world to bind herself to a sexagenarian if, at the outset of the relationship, she had been made aware of the enormity of the arrangement that was proposed.” [7]

Do you really think Ms Thorne would have let him put a ring on it by signing the pre-nuptial agreement if she clearly understood what she was getting herself into and if she hadn’t almost entirely abandoned her life to travel to Australia to marry Mr Kennedy?

I don’t, neither does the High Court of Australia.

[1] Thorne v Kennedy [2015] FCCA 484 at [91].

[2] Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 at [9].

[3] Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 at [12].

[4] Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 at [14].

[5] Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 at [122]

[6] Thorne v Kennedy [2015] FCCA 484 at [91].

[7] Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 at [75].

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australian's for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at McKinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Anne Hurley. She helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Anne"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO AltusQ Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Anne."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Legal Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

Select your location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.