HHJ Vincent. Preliminary hearing to determine whether parties should be held to a separation agreement. Agreement found to be ‘presumptively dispositive’. An agreement will not be unpicked merely because a business has thereafter performed well.

Background

H (46) and W (43) married in 2008 and separated in 2016. In 2019 they entered into a separation agreement whereby H would retain his business and non-matrimonial properties and W would retain the family home. The parties instructed their respective solicitors to prepare a consent order to lodge at court, but by June 2023 negotiations on this had broken down.

H applied for financial remedies and issued a notice to show cause as to why the parties should not be held to the agreement. Crucially, H’s Form E revealed a business valued at £25 million, which W said she had been misled about.

Discussion

HHJ Vincent concluded that she need not look further than the principles espoused in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, at [42].

At [71] to [118], HHJ Vincent considered and then rejected each of W’s four allegations against the separation agreement.

1. H dishonestly misled W as to the true value of the business

H was not secretive about the business. The cashflow of the business had remained a consistent issue and that fact was not hidden from W. Similarly, the fact that the business was generating more money post-separation was also not hidden from W; [74]. W could have known from financial decisions made by H that the business was doing well; [80].

2. H did not give full and frank disclosure

It was more likely that W declined the invitation for disclosure and H agreed to that, contrary to W’s position; [81]. There was no evidence of H concealing information and indeed, it was W who concealed her ownership of House 1A; [81].

3. H placed W under undue pressure and duress

There was no undue pressure or duress; [94].

4. The terms of the settlement were patently unfair

The terms were not unfair; [106]. Whilst H’s business is now worth a large sum of money there is no evidence to suggest that was the case at the time of the agreement or that it could have been anticipated. H took on a significant risk whilst W avoided such risk and retained a family home worth between £600,000–£700,000; [118].

Effect

The agreement stands and was presumptively dispositive. The fact that H’s business is now doing well did not entitle W to unpick the agreement which was consensually entered into following legal advice.

The agreement would therefore have weight in the following financial remedies proceedings. This has the result of narrowing the court’s enquiry, although the other section 25 factors remained live issues; [124]. W’s needs argument will require consideration.

The judgment finishes with an apt reminder to the parties that they are now asked to consider non-court dispute resolution (PD 3A, Part 3 and Part 28 Family Procedure Rules).