The applicant wife sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement executed shortly before the parties purchased a home and later married.
The agreement provided that each party would retain their initial contribution to the home and share the remaining equity 70/30 in favour of the respondent husband.
The applicant argued she did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement and received inadequate independent legal advice.
The court found the independent legal advice was deficient but concluded the applicant was not under duress, the terms were not unconscionable, and the respondent did not take advantage of her.
The court declined to set aside the agreement.
