Applicant seeks to enforce binding financial agreement requiring former de facto partner to transfer property interest; how does the court determine the agreement's validity and enforceability?

Enforcement of Binding Financial Agreement in De Facto Relationship: Determining Property Transfer Legality in Respondent’s Absence

Introduction

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Delan & Lin [2025] FedCFamC2F 993, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Presiding Judge: Judge Eldershaw
Cause of Action: Enforcement of a Binding Financial Agreement under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Judgment Date: 21 July 2025
File Number: SYC 6573 of 2024
Place: Sydney

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Binding Financial Agreement Enforcement
Keyword 3: De Facto Relationship Property Settlement
Keyword 4: Undefended Hearing
Keyword 5: Substituted Service
Keyword 6: Judicial Discretion

Background:

The matter before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) concerned an application by Ms Delan (the Applicant) to enforce a financial agreement made in January 2015 with Mr Lin (the Respondent). The parties were in a de facto relationship from August 2007, separating in January 2019. The agreement stipulated, among other things, that upon the breakdown of their relationship, the Respondent’s interest in a specific property (the Suburb C Property) would be transferred to the Applicant. Despite numerous attempts by the Applicant, through both direct communication via WeChat and formal legal channels, the Respondent consistently failed to cooperate, participate in negotiations, or engage with the court proceedings. This led the Applicant to seek enforcement orders, including a request for the Court to appoint an alternate signatory for the property transfer, and for the matter to proceed to final disposition in the Respondent’s absence.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The core legal dispute centered on whether the financial agreement, particularly clause 6(b) concerning the property transfer, was binding, valid, enforceable, and effective under the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Applicant sought orders to enforce clause 6(b) of the agreement and, in the event of the Respondent’s continued non-compliance, to appoint the Applicant as a signatory to effect the property transfer under section 106A of the Act. The Respondent made no claims, having consistently failed to participate in the proceedings.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The journey to litigation began with the establishment of a de facto relationship between the Applicant, Ms Delan, and the Respondent, Mr Lin, commencing in August 2007. During their cohabitation, in January 2015, they entered into a Part VIIIAB Financial Agreement under section 90UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), intending to formalise the division of their property and financial resources in the event of their relationship breakdown. This agreement explicitly provided for the transfer of the Respondent’s interest in the “Suburb C Property” to the Applicant.

The relationship ended in January 2019, but the formalisation of the property division remained outstanding. The Applicant first attempted to instigate the property transfer on 9 August 2022, communicating with the Respondent via WeChat, an online messaging platform. During this exchange, the Respondent indicated a conditional willingness to sign the transfer documents in exchange for a payment of AUD $20,000, and expressed some bitterness regarding their past relationship. This conversation, however, did not lead to the desired transfer, setting the stage for the formal legal action.

Further attempts by the Applicant to secure the property transfer failed, including a formal letter of demand sent by her solicitor via personal service to the Respondent’s known address on 6 October 2023. This letter explicitly stated that the de facto relationship had separated in January 2019 and threatened enforcement proceedings if the Respondent did not comply within 14 days. These “decisive moments” underscored the Respondent’s recalcitrance and the Applicant’s escalating need for judicial intervention to enforce the terms of their agreement, culminating in the filing of her Initiating Application.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

Amended Initiating Application (Filed 4 March 2025): The primary document outlining the relief sought, specifically the enforcement of clause 6(b) of the Financial Agreement and appointment of an alternative signatory under section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Applicant’s Affidavit (Filed 6 May 2025): Detailed the history of the relationship, the execution of the Financial Agreement, the breakdown of the relationship, and attempts to secure the Respondent’s compliance with the agreement, including the WeChat communications. It also contained a belated separation declaration executed on 9 June 2025.
Applicant’s Solicitor’s Affidavits (Filed 28 March 2025, 7 May 2025, and 12 June 2025): These affidavits provided evidence of extensive efforts to serve the Respondent with legal documents, including tracked post to his physical address (Suburb P address) and electronic transmission via his WeChat ID. They documented the Respondent’s non-engagement, the automation of his WeChat to block communication, and compliance with various court orders for service. The affidavit filed on 12 June 2025 confirmed the execution and service of a formal separation declaration.
Court Orders (Dated 30 September 2024, 3 February 2025, 16 April 2025, and 5 June 2025): These procedural orders directed substituted service, noted compliance, and set the matter for final disposition in the Respondent’s absence. The order on 5 June 2025 specifically directed the perfection and service of a separation declaration.
Financial Agreement (Dated January 2015): This core document, including its recitals (G, H, I) and clauses (5, 6, 10, 12), formed the basis of the Applicant’s claim. Crucially, it contained certificates of independent legal advice for both parties, complying with section 90UJ(1)(b) requirements.
NSW Law Society Website Document: Adduced by the Applicant, this document confirmed the admission dates of the solicitors who provided independent legal advice, demonstrating their qualification at the time the agreement was signed.
Arguments: The Applicant argued that the Financial Agreement was binding, valid, and enforceable, having met all statutory requirements. The Respondent’s consistent non-participation justified the Court proceeding to an undefended hearing and making orders, including the appointment of the Applicant as an alternative signatory. The belated formal separation declaration was presented as not prejudicial and compliant with the Act’s requirements.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

No Appearance or Documents Filed: The Respondent consistently failed to appear at any court event or file any documents in the proceedings.
WeChat Messages (9 August 2022): While presented by the Applicant, these messages indicated the Respondent’s conditional willingness to transfer the property in exchange for AUD $20,000 and general disengagement from direct discussions.
Automated WeChat Reply (10 February 2025): An automated message from the Respondent’s WeChat indicated that “Friend Confirmation” was enabled, impeding further electronic service.
Arguments (Inferred): The Respondent’s actions suggest a deliberate refusal to engage with the legal process, possibly due to a desire for payment, and a conscious choice to avoid the enforcement of the agreement.

Core Dispute Points:

Binding Nature of the Agreement: Whether the Financial Agreement satisfied the requirements of sections 90UC, 90UF, 90UG, and 90UJ of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to be considered a binding financial agreement.
Validity, Enforceability, and Effect of the Agreement: Whether the agreement, specifically clause 6(b), was valid, enforceable, and effective under general contract law principles, as required by section 90UN of the Act.
Proceeding in Absence: Whether the Court should proceed to make final orders in the Respondent’s absence, given the extensive, albeit often unresponded, attempts at service and notification.
Remedial Orders: If the agreement was enforceable, whether the Court should grant the specific relief sought by the Applicant, including the appointment of an alternative signatory under section 106A of the Act and orders regarding the discharge of the mortgage.
Costs: Whether the Applicant was entitled to costs given the Respondent’s non-participation.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this case, the legal document of the “Affidavit” played a pivotal role in constructing the Applicant’s persuasive legal statement, particularly given the Respondent’s complete non-participation. The Applicant’s personal affidavit detailed the genesis of the relationship, its financial intertwining, and ultimately, its dissolution. It specifically laid out the terms of the Financial Agreement and the timeline of events leading to the Respondent’s refusal to comply with clause 6(b) regarding the property transfer.

Crucially, the affidavits filed by the Applicant’s solicitor meticulously detailed every step taken to engage the Respondent. These included:
* Evidence of Separation: Confirming that the parties had separated in January 2019, satisfying the initial condition for the agreement’s activation.
* Communication Attempts: Documenting numerous attempts to contact the Respondent via WeChat since August 2022, detailing the content of the messages (e.g., the Applicant’s request for property transfer, the Respondent’s conditional offer of AUD $20,000 for signing, and the Applicant’s solicitor’s letter demanding compliance).
* Service of Documents: Providing comprehensive records of formal service, including tracked post to the Respondent’s physical address and electronic transmission via WeChat. The affidavits meticulously recorded the dates of service and, notably, the automated WeChat reply received on 10 February 2025, indicating the Respondent had enabled “Friend Confirmation,” which impeded further direct electronic communication.
* Compliance with Court Directions: Demonstrating strict adherence to all judicial orders concerning substituted service and the perfection of a formal separation declaration. The affidavit filed on 12 June 2025 specifically confirmed the execution of a separation declaration by the Applicant on 9 June 2025 and its service on the Respondent.

The strategic intent behind the Judge’s procedural directions, particularly those requiring specific methods of service and a formal separation declaration, was to ensure that the Respondent was unequivocally aware of the proceedings and his obligations. This framework allowed the Court to establish that the Respondent had chosen not to participate despite proper notice, thereby laying the groundwork for proceeding to an undefended hearing. The meticulous detail in the affidavits allowed the Court to clearly delineate the boundary between the Applicant’s diligent pursuit of legal process and the Respondent’s deliberate disengagement, reinforcing the credibility of the Applicant’s account.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court issued several procedural orders and special directions to manage the case, primarily to ensure that the Respondent had adequate notice and opportunity to participate, despite his consistent non-engagement. These orders were crucial in establishing a fair process before proceeding to an undefended hearing.

The key court orders made during the procedural history of the case included:

Substituted Service Orders (30 September 2024): The Judicial Registrar ordered that the Applicant’s Initiating Application and supporting documents be served on the Respondent by tracked post to his “Suburb P” address and electronically via his WeChat address. This order also required the Applicant to send a prescribed text message to the Respondent’s last known phone number, outlining the nature of the proceedings and the consequences of non-appearance, including the possibility of an undefended hearing and a liability for costs.
Compliance and Response Directions (3 February 2025): Noting the Applicant’s compliance with the previous substituted service orders, the Judicial Registrar directed the Applicant to serve a copy of these new orders, along with any Amended Initiating Application and affidavit, on the Respondent using the same “Suburb P” and WeChat addresses. The Respondent was given an extension to file his Response and other material by 31 March 2025.
Final Disposition Directions (16 April 2025): In light of the Respondent’s continued non-appearance, the Court directed that the matter proceed to final disposition in his absence, considering his failure to participate despite repeated notice.
Separation Declaration Perfection (5 June 2025): The Court directed the Applicant to perfect a formal separation declaration, in accordance with section 90UF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and serve it on the Respondent by 18 June 2025. This direction addressed an oversight in the initial application, ensuring all statutory requirements for the agreement’s enforceability were met.

These orders collectively demonstrate the Court’s commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and establishing a clear evidentiary record of the Respondent’s awareness of and deliberate non-participation in the proceedings.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing, although ultimately undefended in the Respondent’s absence, unfolded as a rigorous examination of the Applicant’s evidence and legal arguments. The Court’s role was to meticulously reconstruct the factual matrix and apply the statutory provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to determine the enforceability of the Financial Agreement.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration:

The cross-examination process, albeit a unilateral one where the Court probed the Applicant’s evidence, focused heavily on the numerous attempts made to notify and engage the Respondent. The affidavits from the Applicant’s solicitor detailed every communication attempt, from the initial WeChat messages in August 2022, to the formal letter of demand in October 2023, and the multiple rounds of substituted service directed by the Court. The logical inconsistencies or breaks in testimony, if any, were not from the Respondent, but rather from the Applicant’s legal team’s initial oversight regarding the formal separation declaration. This oversight, however, was remedied promptly under judicial direction.

Core Evidence Confrontation:

The most decisive evidence was the Financial Agreement itself, coupled with proof of its proper execution, including the certificates of independent legal advice for both parties. The core confrontation revolved around establishing that the statutory conditions for the agreement’s binding nature (sections 90UC, 90UF, 90UG, 90UJ) and its enforceability (section 90UN) had been met. The Applicant’s evidence of the WeChat exchanges was critical in establishing the breakdown of the relationship and the Respondent’s knowledge and deliberate refusal to cooperate. The subsequent formal service of documents, repeatedly proven through solicitor affidavits, was essential to counter any potential claim of lack of notice by the absent Respondent.

Judicial Reasoning:

The Judge meticulously explained how the facts, as presented by the Applicant, drove the decision. His Honour formed the decision based on the objective chain of evidence, particularly the consistent attempts at communication and service, and the statutory provisions governing financial agreements.

On the question of the agreement’s binding nature and the requirements of section 90UJ, the Court noted:

“The Family Law Act contains no prescription as to the matters which may be the subject of the contract. Financial agreements do not depend in any way on the powers under s 79. There is no express requirement that the provisions must be just and equitable. Further, in relation to a maintenance agreement under s 87 the Court had to be satisfied that ‘the provisions of the agreement with respect to financial matters are proper’. However, there is no such requirement in relation to financial agreements. All that is required is that the provisions of s 90G are complied with.” (Paragraph 64, quoting O’Ryan J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Rich (2003))

This statement clarified that the Court’s role was not to assess the fairness of the agreement but strictly its compliance with the statutory framework for binding financial agreements. The Judge was satisfied that both parties received independent legal advice and that the certificates were exchanged, thus fulfilling section 90UJ(1)(b) and (ca).

Regarding the critical issue of whether “separation” (as defined by clause 5 of the Agreement) had occurred, the Judge considered the WeChat messages as evidence of the Respondent’s intention:

“The statement ‘without me more, you wouldn’t be like this; Without you, I would also, wouldn’t be like this’ is difficult to comprehend. However, the reference to the respondent’s ‘girlfriend’, each party’s comments about being ‘on the government’s blacklist’ and the respondent’s statement ‘but you need to remember how you treated me when I returned to Australia. Now you ask me to sign it and that’s fine. And if you want me to sign it, then pay me 20,000 as a gesture. If you’re willing to pay, you leave the money with the lawyer and I’ll go and sign it’ demonstrate that the parties are no longer in a de facto relationship by reason of the bitterness of some comments, and the transactional nature of others by reference to the intermediary of lawyers.” (Paragraph 81)

This analysis was determinative in establishing the breakdown of the relationship, fulfilling the conditions of clause 5. The Judge’s inference that WeChat, despite not being explicitly listed, served as a valid method of communication under clause 10 was also crucial, especially in light of the Respondent’s active use of the platform. His Honour further noted:

“Before exercising statutory powers or applying general contract law principles to enforce the terms of an agreement the Court must know with sufficient certainty what they mean.” (Paragraph 76, quoting Barre & Barre [2021] FamCA 101)

The Court found the language of clause 6(b) to be “plain,” clearly indicating the parties’ intention for the property transfer upon relationship breakdown, thus establishing the necessary certainty for enforcement. This meticulous application of statutory and contractual principles to the detailed factual matrix ultimately led to the Court’s decision to enforce the agreement.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), presided over by Judge Eldershaw, issued the following orders and procedural directions:

ORDERS

Enforcement of Financial Agreement
1. Orders are made pursuant to section 90UN(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) that the Financial Agreement dated January 2015 (the Agreement) between Ms Delan (the Applicant) and Mr Lin (the Respondent) is enforced as if it were an order of the Court.
2. The Respondent shall do all acts and things to execute all necessary instruments to cause the whole of his right, title, and interest in the property known as B Street, Suburb C in the State of New South Wales (being the whole of the land in folio identifier […]) (the Suburb C Property) to be transferred to the Applicant.
3. Pursuant to section 106A of the Act, in the event the Respondent refuses or neglects to execute any document required to give effect to Order 2 herein within thirty-five days of being provided with such a document to sign, the Court:
* (a) appoints the Applicant to sign such document in the Respondent’s place; and
* (b) authorises to give validity and effect to such document.
4. The Applicant shall be solely liable for the payment of any Discharge of Mortgage Registration, Document Processing Fee and Fixed Rate Break Costs relating to the discharge of the mortgage registered on the Title of the Property in favour of Westpac Banking Corporation.

Application to vary or set aside
5. If the Respondent seeks to vary or set aside any or all of Orders 1 to 4 herein, then he must, by 4:00 pm on 18 August 2025, file and serve an Initiating Application (Family Law) and an affidavit setting out all relevant facts, matters, and circumstances as to why the order(s) should be so set aside or varied.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case holds significant jurisprudential value, particularly in its pragmatic approach to enforcing binding financial agreements in the context of non-participating parties and the evolving landscape of digital communication. The Court demonstrated a willingness to proceed to final disposition in the Respondent’s absence, underscoring the principle that a party cannot simply disengage from legal proceedings to avoid their obligations. The Judge’s decision to accept WeChat messages as a valid form of “written notice” for separation purposes, even when not explicitly listed in the agreement’s notice clause, reflects a contemporary understanding of communication methods and a flexible interpretation of contractual terms to give effect to the parties’ true intentions. Furthermore, the Court’s direct application of section 90UN(c) to enforce the agreement “as if it were an order of the court,” without explicit reference to section 90UJ(4)’s discretionary power to declare an agreement binding, streamlines the enforcement process, particularly when a party is actively avoiding compliance. This approach limits avenues for the recalcitrant party to challenge procedural fairness post-judgment, provided proper notice has been established.

Judgment Points:

Digital Communication for Contractual Notice: The Court’s acceptance of WeChat messages as satisfying the “written notice” requirement of the agreement’s separation clause, even without explicit mention in the agreement’s notice provision, is a noteworthy detail. This suggests a modern judicial interpretation of contractual terms that adapts to contemporary communication methods, especially where clear intent is demonstrable.
Proceeding in Absentia: The case firmly establishes the Court’s resolve to proceed with final orders in an undefended hearing when a party consistently fails to engage, despite multiple layers of formal and substituted service. This highlights the severe consequences for litigants who choose to ignore court processes.
Judicial Discretion for Alternate Signatory: The order appointing the Applicant as an alternative signatory under section 106A of the Act is a powerful remedy. It ensures that the non-compliance of one party does not indefinitely impede the implementation of a valid agreement, providing a practical mechanism for enforcement.
Pragmatism Regarding Separation Declaration: The initial oversight by the Applicant’s legal team regarding the formal separation declaration under section 90UF was not fatal. The Court’s direction for its subsequent perfection and service, and its acceptance of the belated but compliant declaration, illustrates a pragmatic judicial approach aimed at upholding the substance of the law and agreements.

Legal Basis:

The Judge referred to several specific statutory provisions and sections to resolve evidentiary contradictions and legal questions:
* Section 90UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Governs financial agreements made during a de facto relationship, requiring them to be in writing and expressly stated as made under this section.
* Section 90UF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Mandates a separation declaration for certain provisions of a financial agreement to take effect, requiring a written declaration by at least one spouse party stating separation and no reasonable likelihood of cohabitation resumption.
* Section 90UG of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Stipulates that certain provisions of a financial agreement take effect only upon the breakdown of the de facto relationship.
* Section 90UJ of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Outlines when financial agreements are binding, including requirements for independent legal advice and signed statements from legal practitioners.
* Section 90UN of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Addresses the validity, enforceability, and effect of financial agreements, granting the Court powers to enforce an agreement as if it were a court order.
* Section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Empowers the Court to appoint a person to execute documents if a party refuses or neglects to do so.
* Section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Deals with costs in family law proceedings.
* Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth): Pertains to setting aside or varying orders.
* Section 186 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth): Relates to a court’s power to deal with a matter without an oral hearing with the parties’ consent.

Evidence Chain:

The Court’s conclusion that the Financial Agreement was binding, valid, enforceable, and effective was built upon a robust chain of evidence:
* The Financial Agreement: The physical document itself, signed by both parties, with annexed certificates of independent legal advice confirming compliance with section 90UJ(1)(b) and (ca) of the Act.
* WeChat Communications: The messages exchanged between the parties on 9 August 2022, revealing discussions about property transfer, the Respondent’s conditional demands, and statements indicative of a relationship breakdown. This evidence was crucial for satisfying Clause 5 (separation definition) of the Agreement and demonstrating the Respondent’s awareness.
* Solicitor’s Letter of Demand: The formal letter sent on 6 October 2023, demanding compliance with the agreement, served personally on the Respondent. This acted as unequivocal written notice of the Applicant’s intention to end the relationship, further satisfying Clause 5(b) and Clause 10(a) (delivery by personal service) of the Agreement.
* Affidavits of Service and Court Orders for Substituted Service: Multiple affidavits from the Applicant’s solicitor detailed the various attempts to serve court documents via tracked post to the Respondent’s physical address and WeChat. The Court’s orders for substituted service validated these methods, ensuring the Respondent had formal notice of the proceedings and the potential for an undefended hearing.
* Separation Declaration: The belated but compliant separation declaration, executed by the Applicant on 9 June 2025 and served on the Respondent, fulfilled the statutory requirements of section 90UF of the Act, which was critical for the enforceability of the property division clause.

Judicial Original Quotation:

On the broad powers for enforcement under section 90UN(c), the Court referenced:

“[73] The Family Law Act contains no prescription as to the matters which may be the subject of the contract. Financial agreements do not depend in any way on the powers under s 79. There is no express requirement that the provisions must be just and equitable. Further, in relation to a maintenance agreement under s 87 the Court had to be satisfied that ‘the provisions of the agreement with respect to financial matters are proper’. However, there is no such requirement in relation to financial agreements. All that is required is that the provisions of s 90G are complied with.” (Paragraph 64, quoting O’Ryan J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Rich (2003) 31 Fam LR 667 at [73])
This quote highlights the distinct nature of financial agreements, where the Court’s focus is on statutory compliance rather than a broader assessment of fairness, reinforcing the foundational principle for enforcing such agreements.

On the issue of interpreting the terms of the agreement with sufficient certainty for enforcement, the Court applied a principle from Barre & Barre:

“Before exercising statutory powers or applying general contract law principles to enforce the terms of an agreement the Court must know with sufficient certainty what they mean.” (Paragraph 76, quoting Barre & Barre [2021] FamCA 101 at [142])
This emphasizes that clarity of the agreement’s terms is a prerequisite for judicial enforcement. The Court found clause 6(b) sufficiently clear to proceed.

On the critical aspect of establishing separation as per Clause 5 of the Agreement, and the Court’s interpretation of the Respondent’s communications:

“The statement ‘without me more, you wouldn’t be like this; Without you, I would also, wouldn’t be like this’ is difficult to comprehend. However, the reference to the respondent’s ‘girlfriend’, each party’s comments about being ‘on the government’s blacklist’ and the respondent’s statement ‘but you need to remember how you treated me when I returned to Australia. Now you ask me to sign it and that’s fine. And if you want me to sign it, then pay me 20,000 as a gesture. If you’re willing to pay, you leave the money with the lawyer and I’ll go and sign it’ demonstrate that the parties are no longer in a de facto relationship by reason of the bitterness of some comments, and the transactional nature of others by reference to the intermediary of lawyers.” (Paragraph 81)
This judicial inference from seemingly ambiguous statements, considered within context, was central to establishing the definitive breakdown of the relationship, a key precondition for enforcing the financial agreement.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Respondent’s failure in this case stemmed almost entirely from his consistent and deliberate non-participation in the legal process. Despite numerous attempts at communication and formal service, including substituted service orders designed to maximise his awareness, he chose to disengage. His attempts to negotiate a payment for signing via WeChat, rather than engaging through proper legal channels, were insufficient and did not constitute a valid defence or engagement. By activating “Friend Confirmation” on WeChat, he actively impeded communication, which the Court interpreted as a deliberate attempt to avoid proceedings while being aware of their existence and consequences. This behaviour left the Court with no option but to proceed to an undefended hearing, where the Applicant’s evidence and arguments, being uncontroverted, were accepted. The Respondent’s failure to file any response or attend court meant he forfeited the opportunity to challenge the agreement’s validity, present his perspective on separation, or argue against the enforcement orders sought.

Implications

Written Agreements are Powerful: This case powerfully illustrates the enduring strength of well-drafted financial agreements. Even when one party is uncooperative, a clear, legally compliant agreement provides a solid foundation for enforcement by the Court.
Consequences of Non-Participation: Ignoring legal proceedings can lead to significant adverse outcomes. The Court will not hesitate to make final orders in a party’s absence if they have been properly notified and given opportunities to respond.
Digital Footprints in Law: Digital communications like WeChat messages can be valid evidence in court. Be mindful that even informal exchanges can carry legal weight and reflect intentions regarding contractual obligations.
Judicial Adaptability to Modern Communication: The Court’s flexible interpretation of “written notice” to include digital platforms demonstrates a willingness to adapt to contemporary communication methods, ensuring justice remains accessible and responsive to real-world interactions.
Proactive Legal Counsel is Key: While an initial oversight by the Applicant’s legal team occurred, their proactive and diligent remediation, coupled with thorough documentation of all steps, was crucial to the successful outcome. This highlights the value of continuous engagement with experienced legal professionals.

Q&A Session

Q1: What are the consequences of not participating in family law proceedings, even if I don’t agree with the other party’s claims?
A1: As seen in this case, the consequences can be severe. If you are properly served with court documents and fail to participate (e.g., by filing a response or attending hearings), the Court may proceed to make final orders in your absence. These orders will be based solely on the evidence presented by the participating party and may include remedies such as property transfers, financial payments, or specific actions you are compelled to take, potentially including an order to pay the other party’s legal costs. It is crucial to seek legal advice and engage with the court process to protect your interests.

Q2: Can a financial agreement still be enforced if one party refuses to sign the necessary documents for property transfer?
A2: Yes, absolutely. If a financial agreement is deemed binding, valid, and enforceable, and one party refuses or neglects to execute documents required to give effect to it, the Court has powers under legislation such as section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This allows the Court to appoint another person (often the other party or a court officer) to sign the documents in the non-compliant party’s place, effectively bypassing their refusal and enforcing the agreement.

Q3: How does the Court view digital communications, like messages on platforms such as WeChat, in legal cases, especially for formal notices?
A3: This case demonstrates that Australian courts can accept digital communications as evidence and, in certain circumstances, as a valid method of providing notice under a contract, even if not explicitly listed in the agreement. The key factors are whether the communication clearly conveys the required information (e.g., intention to separate), whether it can be proven that the message was sent and received, and whether the platform was a common mode of communication between the parties. However, it is always safer to use formal, explicitly agreed-upon methods for critical legal notices, and if relying on digital means, to meticulously document all aspects of the communication.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: De Facto Relationship – Binding Financial Agreement Enforcement
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)
Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA):
* Duration of the relationship: (General rule: 2 years, unless exceptions apply). In this case, the parties cohabited for approximately 12 years (August 2007 to January 2019), clearly satisfying this criterion.
* Nature and extent of common residence: (Did they live together? Was it continuous?). The judgment indicates cohabitation from August 2007, implying common residence.
* Whether a sexual relationship exists: (Or existed). While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the length and nature of the relationship, combined with a formal financial agreement, strongly imply this.
* Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: (Any financial support arrangements?). The existence of a financial agreement itself implies a degree of financial interweaving and the intention to regulate financial matters between them.
* Ownership, use and acquisition of property: (Joint names or separate?). The dispute over the “Suburb C Property” being transferred from the Respondent to the Applicant indicates joint or shared property interests regulated by the agreement.
* Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: (Was it casual or committed?). The 12-year duration and the execution of a formal financial agreement strongly indicate a committed shared life.
* The care and support of children. Not explicitly mentioned in this judgment, so assumed not a primary factor in this specific dispute.
* Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: (Did family/friends view them as a couple?). Not explicitly detailed in the judgment, but generally inferred from the other factors.

Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process:
* Identification and Valuation: Determine the net asset pool (assets minus liabilities). The Financial Agreement pre-determined the distribution of the “Suburb C Property”.
* Assessment of Contributions: Financial contributions (initial, during relationship), Non-financial contributions (renovations), and Contributions to the welfare of the family (homemaker/parenting duties). The financial agreement generally overrides a detailed re-assessment of contributions, as it sets out agreed terms.
* Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) Factors): Consideration of age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and standard of living. Section 90UN enforcement of a binding financial agreement specifically directs the Court not to consider whether the agreement is just and equitable (as confirmed by Barre & Barre), thus diminishing the role of section 75(2) factors compared to a standard property settlement.
* Just and Equitable: The final sanity check—is the proposed division fair in all the circumstances? For binding financial agreements, the Court’s primary focus is on the agreement’s validity and binding nature under specific statutory sections, rather than a broad “just and equitable” assessment under section 79 or 90SM, unless an application to set aside the agreement is made (section 90K or 90UM).

Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975): Not applicable in this case, as the judgment focuses solely on property and financial agreements.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
If dealing with [Family] matters, even when statutory law is applicable, it is important to understand alternative pathways or supplementary claims.
Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
* Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation (e.g., “this property will be yours”)? The Financial Agreement itself is a formal contractual promise.
* Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise (e.g., renovating the property, resigning from a job)? The Applicant’s continued reliance on the agreement and her pursuit of its enforcement, including incurring legal costs, could be seen as detrimental reliance.
* Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from that promise? Given the binding nature of the agreement and the Respondent’s refusal to comply, it would be considered unconscionable for him to resile from its terms.
* Result Reference: Even without a written contract, Equity may “estop” the other party from going back on their word. In this case, the formal contract makes estoppel less critical for enforcement, but the principles underpin why the Court enforces signed agreements.

Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
* Has the other party received a benefit (money or labor) at your expense? Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without payment? The Respondent retaining his interest in the Suburb C Property, despite the agreement stipulating its transfer, could be argued as an unjust retention of benefit.
* Result Reference: The Court may order the restitution of the benefit or declare that you hold a beneficial interest in the asset via a Constructive Trust. These would be alternative, albeit more complex, remedies if the financial agreement itself were found non-binding or invalid.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
Regular Thresholds:
* 2-year de facto cohabitation (Section 4AA, Family Law Act 1975): The parties exceeded this, cohabiting for approximately 12 years.
* 24-month time limit for property applications following separation (Section 44(5), Family Law Act 1975): While not directly the focus of the judgment, enforcement actions generally follow separation. The initial initiating application was filed on 22 August 2024, more than 2 years after January 2019 separation. However, applications for enforcement of financial agreements may be subject to different time limit considerations or discretionary extensions if it is unjust to refuse.
* Requirement for independent legal advice and certificates (Section 90UJ, Family Law Act 1975): This is a critical “hard threshold” for a binding financial agreement. The evidence in this case confirmed both parties received this advice and their solicitors provided certificates.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Family Law: Less than 2 years of cohabitation? → Exemption may be available pursuant to Section 90SB if there is a child of the relationship or if the applicant has made substantial contributions and a failure to make the order would result in serious injustice. (Not applicable here due to long cohabitation).
* Unilateral Non-Compliance and Enforcement (Section 106A, Family Law Act 1975): This is the key “exceptional channel” utilised in this case. When a party refuses or neglects to execute documents as required by an order or agreement, the Court can appoint another person to do so, preventing non-compliance from frustrating the legal process.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* Enforcement of binding financial agreements under sections 90UN(c) and 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
* Situations where a party has persistently failed to engage in court proceedings, leading to an undefended hearing.
* The judicial interpretation of “written notice” in contracts to include modern digital communication methods like WeChat.
* The Court’s approach to procedural oversights (e.g., belated separation declarations) when substance can still be achieved.

Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves:
* Seeking enforcement of a binding financial agreement against a non-compliant party.
* Arguing for substituted service or proceeding in absentia due to a party’s deliberate disengagement.
* Submitting that digital communications between parties should be accepted as evidence of notice or intent under a contract.
* Applying for the appointment of an alternative signatory to execute documents.
* Citing this authority can strengthen your argument.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasize the unique aspects of the current matter to argue that this precedent is not applicable, for example:
* If your case involves an actively participating respondent.
* If there is a genuine dispute regarding the validity or binding nature of the financial agreement itself, rather than mere non-compliance.
* If the communication relied upon is less clear or less demonstrative of intent than the WeChat messages in Delan & Lin.

Conclusion

The judgment in Delan & Lin [2025] FedCFamC2F 993 serves as a critical affirmation of the enforceability of binding financial agreements, even in the face of persistent non-compliance and disengagement by a party. It highlights the Court’s robust powers to ensure that valid agreements are upheld, adapting to modern communication methods and providing practical remedies to achieve just outcomes. This case underscores a fundamental principle of Australian family law: while parties have the autonomy to formalise their financial affairs, they also bear the responsibility to engage with the legal process. True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Delan & Lin [2025] FedCFamC2F 993), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.
Please format all the above content and send it to me, and it involves professional legal content! You must not omit anything, and you must not allow others to find legal loopholes. For example: Article 4AA of the “Fact Partner Relationship Law” has nine clauses! Do not omit any, just generate the content of the main text and the title for me. The entire text should be output.

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.