The world is abuzz with the joyous news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's engagement! As we celebrate their union, this high-profile engagement serves as a timely reminder for all couples, regardless of their celebrity status, about the importance of proactive financial planning and asset protection. What is a Binding Financial Agreement? A Binding Financial Agreement (BFA), often referred to as a prenuptial agreement (or "prenup"), is a legally binding contract made by two people who are in a de facto relationship, contemplating marriage, or already married. It outlines how assets, liabilities, and financial resources will be divided in the event of a separation or divorce. While some may view BFAs negatively, they are, in fact, a sensible and strategic tool for financial clarity and peace of mind. Why Consider a BFA? Asset Protection: For individuals who bring significant assets into a relationship, such as inheritances, businesses, or properties, a BFA can protect these assets from being divided in ways they didn't intend. Debt Protection: BFAs can also clarify how existing debts, or debts incurred during the relationship, will be managed, safeguarding one partner from the other's financial liabilities. Clarity and Certainty: It provides a clear framework for financial matters, reducing potential disputes and emotional stress should the relationship end. Estate Planning: A BFA can complement your estate planning, ensuring that your wishes for your assets are respected even after marriage. Future Business Ventures: For entrepreneurs, a BFA can protect business interests and ensure continuity, regardless of marital status. Beyond the Headlines: A Universal Need While the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce engagement highlights the need for BFAs among high-net-worth individuals, the principles of asset protection apply to everyone. Marriage is a significant legal and financial commitment. Taking the time to discuss and formalize financial arrangements can strengthen a relationship by fostering open communication and mutual understanding. How Hammond Nguyen Turnbull Can Help At Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, our experienced family law team understands the sensitive nature of financial agreements. We provide compassionate, confidential, and expert legal advice to help you:  Understand the implications of a BFA for your specific circumstances. Draft a comprehensive and legally sound agreement that reflects your intentions. Negotiate terms fairly and respectfully with your partner. Ensure compliance with all legal requirements. Just as Taylor and Travis are building a life together, you too can build a secure financial future. Contact Hammond Nguyen Turnbull today to discuss how a Binding Financial Agreement can provide you with confidence and peace of mind.

It’s a common and dangerous misconception: that because Australian corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue for defamation, they are powerless against false statements that damage their reputation and bottom line. As of August 2025, in an era of instant digital outrage, this belief leaves many businesses feeling exposed. The reality is far different. While the front door of defamation law may be closed, the law provides several powerful side doors for large corporations to protect their brand, revenue, and reputation. Understanding these alternative legal weapons is critical for any major Australian business. The Defamation Rule: A Quick Recap The law preventing large companies from suing for defamation was designed to foster public debate, ensuring powerful entities couldn't use their resources to silence critics. However, the law never intended to provide a free-for-all for anyone to publish damaging falsehoods without consequence. If your business is facing a reputational attack, here are the primary legal avenues you can and should consider. 1. Injurious Falsehood: The Business Reputation Tort Think of injurious falsehood (also known as malicious falsehood) as the business-focused cousin of defamation. It is specifically designed to compensate for economic loss suffered due to false statements made about a business. To succeed in an action for injurious falsehood, a business must prove four things: A False Statement: A false statement was made about the company’s goods, services, or business practices. Publication: The statement was published to a third party. Malice: The publisher acted with malice. This is the key difference from defamation. You must prove the person who made the statement knew it was false or was recklessly indifferent to the truth. Actual Damage: The false statement caused actual financial loss. This could be cancelled contracts, a measurable drop in sales, or costs incurred to mitigate the damage. While the requirement to prove malice and actual damage makes it a higher bar than defamation, it is a powerful tool against deliberate and malicious attacks. 2. Misleading or Deceptive Conduct: The ACL Powerhouse Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is arguably the most potent and versatile weapon in a large corporation's arsenal. It states that a person must not, in trade or commerce , engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. How does this apply to reputational attacks? Competitor Statements: If a competitor makes false or misleading comparisons, or publishes false negative information about your products or services to gain a commercial advantage, this is a clear breach of the ACL. False Online Reviews for Commercial Gain: If a person or rival business creates fake negative reviews to harm your business and promote another, this falls squarely within "trade or commerce." Media & Bloggers: Even some media publications or influential bloggers who operate on a commercial basis could be captured if they publish misleading statements without proper verification. The remedies under the ACL are significant and include: Injunctions to immediately stop the conduct. Damages to compensate for any loss suffered. Orders for Corrective Advertising , forcing the offender to publicly retract their statements. 3. Protecting Your People: Individual Defamation Claims An attack on a business is often executed through an attack on its leaders. While your corporation may not be able to sue for defamation, its directors, CEO, or other executives can sue as individuals if they are identified and their personal and professional reputations are harmed. This can be a highly effective strategy. A false statement that a company is "corrupt" is also a statement that its directors are "corrupt," providing them with a direct path to file a defamation claim to protect their own reputations and, by extension, vindicate the business. A Proactive Strategy is Your Best Defence Knowing your legal options is only half the battle. A large business must have a clear and immediate action plan: Document Meticulously: Preserve all evidence of the false statements. Screenshot websites, social media posts, and online reviews. Note the date, time, and URL. Quantify the Damage: Immediately begin tracking financial impact. Collate data on sales drops, customer enquiries mentioning the false statement, and lost contracts. This is vital evidence for any claim. Issue a Precise Cease and Desist Letter: Instead of a defamation "Concerns Notice," your lawyers will draft a robust Cease and Desist letter. This notice will allege breaches of the Australian Consumer Law and/or injurious falsehood, demand a retraction, and put the publisher on notice of a potential claim for damages. Leverage Platform Power: Report the false statements to the host platforms (Google, Meta, X, etc.), citing breaches of their terms of service and potentially the ACL. Medium to large businesses are not defenceless. By understanding the powerful legal tools available beyond defamation, you can effectively fight back against false and damaging statements, protecting your brand, your employees, and your bottom line.  If your corporation is the subject of a reputational attack, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice immediately. Contact us to discuss a strategic response to protect your commercial interests.