Australia's Supreme Court recently ruled that a prenuptial property agreement signed by a wealthy businessman and bride was null and void.
The thing is, with 18 million assets, the 67-year-old Greek developer met a 36-year-old woman online. The two met a year later, and a few months later, the woman moved to Australia to live in a real estate developer's mansion.
Ten days before the marriage, the real estate developer took the woman to a lawyer and asked her to sign a prenuptial property agreement.
The agreement provides that:
If divorced in the first three years, the woman would not receive any property of the property developer;
In the event of a divorce after three years and no children, the woman will receive a one-time compensation of 50, 000 yuan;
If there are children, the compensation will be five hundred thousand yuan.
The lady signed the agreement because she was afraid of the cancellation of the wedding.
The two men divorced after four years. The next year, the woman filed a lawsuit for the annulment of the prenuptial agreement. Two years later the rich businessman died and his family continued the protracted lawsuit. Three years later, the court made such a ruling.
The High Court held that the prenuptial property agreement had not been signed voluntarily (because the parties concerned were concerned that they would not be able to marry without it) and that the agreement should therefore be annulled.
The woman said she needed $1.1 million in property and $ one hundred and four thousand in one-off compensation. The High Court said it would consider the application.
In this case, we lack enough detail to judge who is right and who is wrong. But as far as the High Court's decision is concerned, Australian law favours the weak and disagrees with agreements entered into against the will of the parties. A friend said that in Australia, most of the divorce cases were divided equally, regardless of whose property they belonged to before marriage.
Another example of this argument is. We have previously reported that 600 of the 50,000 spouse immigrants a year had to end their marriage because of domestic violence. But these people can still get a permanent residence visa and will not be expelled from the country because of a broken marriage. Because Australian legal principles are biased towards the weak.