The parties entered into a marriage contract to exclude the appellant's farm property from equalization.
The respondent later applied to set aside the contract, and the trial judge did so under s. 56(4)(a) of the Family Law Act, finding the appellant failed to make proper disclosure regarding the property's composition and value.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the mistaken belief about the property consisting of one parcel instead of two was an innocent, common mistake.
The respondent had independent legal advice, understood she was giving up claims to the entire property, and was aware of the uncertainties regarding its value, meaning there was no failure to disclose warranting the setting aside of the contract.
