S v S

[2]������� In April 2007 Mr S (the Respondent) agreed a settlement of his ancillary relief proceedings whereby he agreed to pay Mrs S (the Petitioner) the sum of �300,000 within 4 months.� The only real matrimonial asset was the Respondent�s inherited farm which was worth at the time of settlement �1.2m.� It is now worth only �800,000.

[3]������� Since the date of settlement the Respondent initially tried to raise money against the security of his farm.� Given his modest income I do not believe that that was ever going to be a realistic option.� He then tried to sell parts of the farm in order to satisfy his wife�s entitlement and at one stage received an offer of �250,000 for a portion of the farm but refused to accept it as he felt it did not represent the value of the lands being sold.

[4]������� Accordingly some 18-20 months later the Petitioner has still not been paid any money and the Respondent has come back to court to launch a three pronged attack on the settlement.� The Petitioner has also applied to the court under Article 25(6) of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 for consequential directions pursuant to the agreement made.�

[5]������� Prong one of the attack was to ask the court to vary the lump sum order that had been agreed.� Prong two was an application to vary the settlement downwards as a result of intervening factors and prong three was an application to extend time for appeal of the original orders.

[6]������� Due to the collapse in property prices in the province in the last 18 months (and in particular during the course of 2008) there are numerous such cases presently pending.�