A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement): FD 17 Jan 2005

The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, saying that the judge had applied the terms of a separation agreement without acknowledging that that agreement had been entered into without full disclosure having been made. Had the judge looked properly at the issues identified in the Act, the order would have been different.
Held: The case of Smith was particular to its facts and should not be read to have changed the law developed in Edgar and in Camm, and it remained correct to give substantial weight to the terms of a separation agreement.
Black J
Times 23-Mar-2005
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25
England and Wales
CitedEdgar v Edgar CA 23-Jul-1980
H and W separated and in 1976, without any pressure H and at the instigation of W, signed a deed of separation negotiated through solicitors. H agreed to purchase a house for W, to confer on her capital benefits worth approximately andpound;100,000, . .
CitedSmith v Smith FD 2000
Ancillary relief . .
CitedCamm v Camm CA 1982
Ancillary relief was claimed in the face of the terms of a separation agreement.
Held: If asked to look at an ancillary relief settlement agreed between the parties, the court could do so where the original provision was inadequate. Here, the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.224378