T v T

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties, referred to as Husband and Wife, were married in 1985 and divorced following a breakdown of their marriage which began shortly after the birth of their child, "A", in 1990. The Husband applied to the court to have a financial agreement made an order of the court, which the Wife opposed, seeking a full financial remedy trial instead. The agreement, executed in 1991 and negotiated by high-end London matrimonial firms, was intended as a full and final settlement of financial claims between the parties, including provisions for property division, maintenance, and custody arrangements. Although both parties acted in accordance with the agreement, it was never made a court order. Over two decades later, the Husband seeks to formalize this agreement by court order, while the Wife challenges its fairness and validity. The matter has been before the court for directions and examination of the parties' conduct and circumstances.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 1991 financial agreement between the parties should be made an order of the court despite not having been formalized previously.
2. Whether the Wife has shown cause to set aside or refuse to enforce the agreement based on allegations of material non-disclosure, undue pressure, or unfairness.
3. The extent to which the court must scrutinise the parties' current financial circumstances when deciding whether to make the agreement an order.
4. The appropriate approach to costs in proceedings arising from a long-delayed application to enforce a historic financial agreement.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Husband's) Arguments

• The 1991 agreement is of "magnetic importance" and should be upheld as the primary and overriding factor.
• The Wife has delayed over 20 years in seeking any financial remedy, and it is now too late to reopen financial claims.
• Both parties acted on the agreement and intended it to be binding, despite it never being made a court order.
• The Husband assumed his solicitors had lodged the order, explaining the absence of a formal court order.
• The Husband's current wealth is largely due to post-separation efforts and his second marriage, which should not affect the original agreement.
• The Wife's application was unnecessary and costs should follow the event, entitling the Husband to his costs on a standard basis subject to detailed assessment.
• Mediation offers were made by the Wife but declined by the Husband due to the clear legal position.

Appellee's (Wife's) Arguments

• The agreement was intended as an interim arrangement to be reviewed at divorce, not a final settlement.
• There was material non-disclosure, particularly regarding the Husband's pension.
• The Wife was under pressure from the Husband remaining in the family home and was bullied by her solicitor into entering the agreement.
• The Husband failed to ensure the agreement was made a court order, possibly to preserve rights to make later applications.
• The court must scrutinise the parties' current financial circumstances before endorsing the historic agreement.
• The Wife claims financial need and hardship, arguing ongoing support is required.
• Mediation was offered by the Wife but refused by the Husband.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the history and terms of the 1991 financial agreement, noting it was negotiated by competent solicitors and intended as a full and final settlement of financial claims. The court found no evidence of material non-disclosure sufficient to unsettle the agreement, particularly regarding the Husband's pension, which the Wife must have known about. Allegations of undue pressure by the Husband or his solicitors were rejected as unsubstantiated or irrelevant in the context of competent legal advice. The court acknowledged the long delay of over 20 years before the Wife sought a financial remedy, which is a significant factor favoring enforcement of the agreement.

Legal principles from leading cases emphasize that while the court must consider the statutory criteria under s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the existence of a freely negotiated agreement with competent legal advice is a paramount factor. The court is not obliged to conduct a detailed scrutiny of the parties' current financial positions when deciding whether to make an agreement an order, unless there are good reasons to do so. The parties have acted on the agreement for over two decades, living separate lives in reliance on it, without any material change of circumstances or mutual agreement to revisit it. The Husband's explanation for the absence of a formal court order is plausible and accepted.

The court also considered costs, concluding that this application was a discrete proceeding not subject to the usual "no order as to costs" rule in financial remedy cases. Since the Wife chose to bring the application and lost, the Husband is entitled to costs on a standard basis subject to detailed assessment. The court acknowledged the Wife's limited liquid capital but noted she remains capital-rich and that the decision to litigate was hers.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the Husband's application to make the 1991 financial agreement an order of the court and rejected the Wife's application for financial provision. The agreement was upheld as a binding, fair, and final settlement of the parties' financial affairs, reflecting their conduct and intentions over more than two decades.

The direct effect is that the Wife's claim for further financial remedy is dismissed and the Husband's position under the agreement is secured. The Husband is entitled to costs of the proceedings on a standard basis subject to detailed assessment. No new precedent was established; the decision applies established principles affirming the importance of negotiated agreements and the impact of long delay in seeking to reopen settled financial matters.