AC v SC provides an important reminder of the weight to be attached to FDR agreements, says Jonathan Herring
Given the huge cut backs in legal aid, increasing emphasis is now placed on encouraging parties to a family law dispute to reach agreements themselves. But what if some issues are agreed to and some are not? What is the position of the agreement at the final hearing? That is an issue which is likely to become an ever more significant one in the years to come. It was addressed by Wildblood QC in the family court at Bristol in AC v SC [2015] EWFC B76.
The couple were in their mid-40s and had married for around 20 years. The wife lived in the former matrimonial home. The husband and wife had divorced and attended a financial dispute resolution appointment (FDR). There a settlement was reached between them on many matters. On maintenance the recorded agreement was: “The respondent will pay maintenance including spousal maintenance for five years with a ban on extending the term.” However, there was
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
