Case No. NP20D02617

[2010] 2 FLR 1900 where Lord Phillips said at paragraph 71:In relation to the circumstances attending the making of the nuptial agreement, this comment of Ormrod LJ in Edgar v Edgar at p 1417, although made about a separation agreement, is pertinent:"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." The first question will be whether any of the standard vitiating factors: duress, fraud or misrepresentation, is present. Even if the agreement does not have contractual force, those factors will negate any effect the agreement might otherwise have. But unconscionable conduct such as undue pressure (falling short of duress) will also be likely to eliminate the weight to be attached to the agreement, and other unworthy conduct, such as exploitation of a dominant position to secure an unfair advantage, would reduce or eliminate it.26.I have been asked to consider whether coercive and controlling behaviour, if proved, falls within the pre-existing Edgar criteria or whether it represents a new category of circumstances which can vitiate/taint an agreement. 27.In my judgment, Ormrod LJ’s words are as relevant now as they were when uttered over 40 years ago. They stand the test of time. Coercive and controlling behaviour would plainly be an example of undue pressure, exploitation of a dominant position or of relevant conduct. It would be part of all the circumstances as they affect the two parties in “the complex relationship of marriage”. If Ormrod LJ were writing his judgment today, he might have employed words such as “coercive and controlling behaviour”.28.The parties agreed that in considering the allegations of behaviour I should approach the matter in this way:i)H’s behaviour to fit within the definition of coercive and controlling behaviour must objectively meet that description. It was immaterial whether he intended his behaviour to have an effect on W; the test for the court is whether objectively his behaviour was coercive and controlling; andii)Subjectively, that same behaviour must have the effect on W of depriving her of the ability to enter into the PNA of her own free will.29.I must look at the allegations in a broad, holistic manner. They are, to the extent that they are proved, part and parcel of a course of conduct. I cannot avoid looking at the allegations individually so as to determine their veracity, but I do not lose sight of the purpose of the exercise which is to assess W’s state of mind when entering the agreement.30.Although pleaded very widely as set out at paragraph 21 above, the evidence that I heard was confined to certain specific areas. Some of the allegations were not pursued and some were not supported by any evidence. Others were the subject of close examination. I now turn to them.