Edgar v Edgar
[1981] 2 FLR 19 where at page 25 Ormrod LJ said: To decide what weight should be given in order to reach a just result, to a prior agreement not to claim a lump sum, regard must be had to the conduct of both parties, leading up to the prior agreement, and to their subsequent conduct, in consequence of it. It is not necessary in this connection to think in formal legal terms, such as misrepresentation or estoppel, all the circumstances as they affect each of two human beings must be considered in the complex relationship of marriage. So, the circumstances surrounding the making of the agreement are relevant. Undue pressure by one side, exploitation of a dominant position to secure an unreasonable advantage, inadequate knowledge, possibly bad legal advice, an important change of circumstances, unforeseen or overlooked at the time of making the agreement, are all relevant to the question of justice between the parties. Important too is the general proposition that, formal agreements, properly and fairly arrived at with competent legal advice, should not be displaced unless there are good and substantial grounds for concluding that an injustice will be done by holding the parties to the terms of their agreement. There may well be other considerations which affect the justice of this case; the above list is not intended to be an exclusive catalogue.25.The Edgar approach was approved by the Supreme Court in
- Approved Judgment
- Sir Jonathan Cohen:
- The parties
- The proceedings
- The law
- Edgar v Edgar
- Radmacher v Granatino
- Physical violence
- Control of daily life
- Finances
- Drinking
- Dr Jones
- Drawing the threads together
- Matrimonial acquest
- Other evidence
- The parties’ open offers
- Assets
- Radmacher
- MacLeod v MacLeod
- W’s needs
- £7,155
- £165,284
- Costs
- POSTSCRIPT
