Case No. NP20D02617

1.I have heard over 4 days the wife’s (“W”) application for financial remedy orders. The husband (“H”) had applied for W to show cause why she should receive any award in excess of the terms of the post nuptial agreement (“PNA”) entered into by the parties on 4 November 2018 but subsequently modified his case to argue that the PNA was a “magnetic factor”.2.This is not a big money case. The total assets of the parties are only a little over £4m. They have been severely depleted by the wasteful expenditure on costs and the misconceived steps taken by each of them in this litigation, so that the total costs incurred exceed £650,000. 3.W’s case is that she was subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour perpetrated by H which had the consequence that she was unable freely to enter into the PNA. She says that it should be afforded no effect. 4.She argues by way of fallback position that:i)The agreement does not in any event meet her needs; andii)She has a sharing claim in the same value as her needs claim so that if I were to assess her needs at lower than the sum she claims, her sharing or entitlement claim would prevail.5.H denies all the allegations made by W. He points out that W made the running and largely dictated the terms of the PNA. He argues that she should be held to it. 6.He further argues that the PNA properly meets her needs but that if I were to take a different view, her needs award would be small. He denies that she has any entitlement claim.7.As I made clear during argument, it seemed clear to me that the PNA did not meet W’s needs, which was unsurprising as it was negotiated against the backdrop of a reconciliation which had already been implemented and left the issue of pensions unresolved. Mr Warshaw QC, appearing with Ms Proudman for W, responded that if only H had taken that view the matter could have been dealt with in half a day before a district judge. Whilst that time estimate might have been optimistic, it illustrated how this litigation has lost focus.