HE WAS a divorced, 67-year-old property developer worth tens of millions, while she was half his age.

They met on a dating site and he organised to fly to her home country in the Middle East to meet in person, promising to marry her if they hit it off.

Now, after a four-year marriage, she is contesting a prenup she signed on the eve of the wedding, which left her with just $50,000 of his fortune.

In Thorne v Kennedy, the stage is set for a landmark legal battle set to lay down a precedent that will affect married and engaged couples across the nation.

It all started back in 2006, when Mr Kennedy* — worth between $18 million and $24 million — began wooing the 36-year-old Ms Thorne* online.

She spoke limited English, but luckily he spoke her native tongue and shared the same religion.

“If I like you I will marry you but you will have to sign paper,” he told her; “My money is for my children,” according to the agreed set of facts presented to the Federal Circuit Court.

The court also heard that he told Ms Thorne: “I will provide you with a house, car and money and I will keep you safe all your life. I am a rich man.”

The pair met in 2007 and married soon after, with Ms Thorne signing a prenup both before the wedding, and a similar one soon after, limiting her claim to any property settlement to $50,000 after three or more years of marriage.

The union lasted three years and, after the separation, Ms Thorne took her ex-husband to court seeking for the agreement to be overturned. She sought a property settlement of $1.24 million, including spousal maintenance.

Mr Kennedy died in 2014 and his estate is continuing his fight against Ms Thorne’s bid for a bigger slice of his wealth, in a dispute to be heard in the High Court.

Ms Thorne claims she was forced to sign the prenup — known in Australian law as a “binding financial agreement” — because her husband-to-be, “Mr Kennedy”, said he would cancel the wedding if she refused.

Her legal team argues that this meant she was “under duress”, and that the agreement should therefore be declared void by the court.

“This is an important case,” family lawyer Scott Wedgwood, of Barry Nilsson Lawyers, told news.com.au.

Mr Wedgwood said the High Court would examine the question of whether threatening to “cancel the caterers” amounted to “unlawful duress”, with dramatic consequences for future litigants.

In previous cases in lower courts, he said, judges had found that in order for an agreement to be thrown out for duress, there must have been “threatened or actual unlawful conduct”.

“Cancelling the caterers is not unlawful conduct,” Mr Wedgwood said. “It’s a very high standard.”

Now the High Court will decide on whether the definition of “duress” should in this context include the take-it-or-leave-it pressure of a late-minute prenup demand, particularly when the person who signs is in a more vulnerable position than their betrothed.

PRENUP OVERTURNED

When Ms Thorne’s application was initially heard, the Federal Circuit Court found that she had had no negotiating power when she signed the prenup, while “every bargaining chip and every power was in Mr Kennedy’s hands”.

“Ms Thorne’s powerlessness arises not only from her lack of financial equality, but also from her lack of permanent status in Australia at the time,” the court found, noting that she relied on Mr Kennedy “for all things” and had an emotional investment in the marriage.

“Ms Thorne understood that if the relationship ended, she would have nothing. No job, no visa, no home, no place, no community,” the court found.

“The consequences of the relationship being at an end would have significant and serious consequences to Ms Thorne. She would not be entitled to remain in Australia and she had nothing to return to anywhere else in the world.”

The court declared the financial agreement to be null and void, but Mr Kennedy’s estate had this decision overturned on appeal.

Now the High Court will decide the case once and for all.

‘A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY’

Ms Thorne’s barrister, former Queensland Attorney-General Matt Foley, said the court had a “golden opportunity” to clarify the law of prenuptual agreements.

Mr Foley will argue that the appeal court applied the wrong test for “duress”, as it failed to consider relevant case law on its interaction with “undue influence and unconscionable conduct”.

“It can be said, as it was, by that great Asian jurist, Chairman Mao, that power grows out of the barrel of a gun — but it can also grow out of the impending big wedding in four days’ time,” he told the High Court while seeking leave to appeal on March 10.

The force of this pressure, he argued, “whether described as duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct”, was “so overwhelming that it cannot be resisted.”

Roberth Letherbridge SC, acting for Mr Kennedy’s estate, will counter that Ms Thorne willingly signed the agreement after obtaining independent legal advice, and was not concerned at the time about the amount of money she would be left with if the marriage ended.

The High Court is due to hear the appeal on August 8.

* Pseudonyms given to the parties by the court to preserve their anonymity.

dana.mccauley@news.com.au