A v A

Mr. J Turner Q.C. and Mr M. Sirikanda (instructed by Withers LLP) for the Applicant Husband Mr. P Chamberlayne Q.C. and Ms S. Hillas (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) for the Respondent Wife Hearing date: Tuesday 13th February 2018 ____________________

i) The husband's primary point is that this was a consent order carefully negotiated and crafted over months of negotiation. It was intended to provide the parties with a clean break and send them off each on their own way.

ii) The judge, in her judgment, paid lip-service at most to the principle that the parties' agreement is a matter of the utmost importance and should, unless there is a very good reason otherwise, be respected. I was referred to Radmacher v Granatino [2011] 1 AC 534 and Zimina v Zimin [2017] EWCA Civ 1429 .

iii) This order would never have been set aside if the Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20 or Myerson v Myerson [2009] 2 FLR 147 principles were to be applied. What has happened was eminently foreseeable. The parties took a punt on the value of the two properties and their failure to sell is a direct result of that.

iv) There was no minimum figure contained in the agreement which the wife might receive. If the wife wanted a minimum that is something that she should have negotiated.