WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreement) (Rev1)  EWFC 22
Published: 22/03/2022 09:00
W’s financial remedy application resulted in a needs-based award of £7.45m net (c.60%). H was from a very wealthy family, and the parties’ lifestyle had been funded by H’s father via annual gifts which had ceased since the divorce proceedings. A post-marital agreement had been negotiated in mid-2017 providing W with c.£7.1m plus child provision.
W’s conscious decision not to sign the post-marital agreement took it outside of the Radmacher presumptions, but it remained one of the relevant factors to be weighed in the s 25 exercise. Steps taken by H’s father rendered the prospect of further support a safety net in the event of calamity, rather than a foreseeable ongoing resource.
 of Peel J’s judgment is the latest iteration of the clear trend towards greater scrutiny of PD27A / Efficiency Statement compliance. In short: 12pt font, 1.5 spacing means just that; pejorative but irrelevant s 25 statements will be met with criticism; and expenditure analysis must be provided well in advance of trial. See also  for a comprehensive (and concise) 16-point summary of the general applicable law to financial remedy applications.