L v M

L v M

The Husband failed to show just cause why he should not be held to the terms of the Separation Agreement. The Agreement was freely entered into with full appreciation of its implications, and the Husband's claims of insufficient disclosure, lack of legal advice, and change of circumstances were unsubstantiated. His failure to comply with disclosure orders justified adverse inferences as to his resources. The Agreement was fair in all the circumstances, subject to modifications to reflect the court's jurisdiction and practicalities.

Parties
Applicant: L; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Family/divorce Show Cause Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in substantial part; Husband held to the Agreement with modifications.
Legal Topics
Separation Agreements, Financial Remedies, Enforcement of Agreements, Disclosure of Assets, Variation of Orders
Family Law Separation Agreements Financial Remedies Enforcement of Agreements Disclosure of Assets Variation of Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family/divorce Show Cause Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Husband should be held to the terms of the Separation Agreement dated 6 August 2010
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient financial disclosure at the time of the Agreement
  3. 3 Whether lack of legal advice to the Husband vitiates the Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Husband failed to show just cause why he should not be held to the terms of the Separation Agreement. The Agreement was freely entered into with full appreciation of its implications, and the Husband's claims of insufficient disclosure, lack of legal advice, and change of circumstances were unsubstantiated. His failure to comply with disclosure orders justified adverse inferences as to his resources. The Agreement was fair in all the circumstances, subject to modifications to reflect the court's jurisdiction and practicalities.

Court Disposition

Application granted in substantial part; Husband held to the Agreement with modifications.

Orders

  • Husband to pay Wife a lump sum of £2,682,573.54 by 1 September 2014, reflecting the agreed capital sum plus interest at 8% per annum.
  • Husband to pay periodical payments to Wife and child as per the Agreement, subject to rounding and statutory modification.