Edgar v Edgar
A formal separation agreement freely entered into 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 it.
Facts
Mrs Edgar was married to a very wealthy man. On their separation, she signed a deed of separation, after taking legal advice, in which she agreed to accept a relatively modest sum and not to claim a lump sum on divorce. Her lawyers had advised her that she would probably get much more if she went to court. Later, on divorce, she applied for a lump sum, and the judge awarded her a much larger sum than in the agreement.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal. Ormrod LJ said that the court should consider the agreement as part of the circumstances under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and 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 was no evidence of pressure or unfair advantage, and Mrs Edgar had acted against her lawyers' advice with her eyes open, so she should be held to the agreement.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
- Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
- Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
