Just how easy is it in practice to apply the principle of compensation, asks Ed Heaton
This article considers the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in the recent case of SA v PA (pre-marital agreement: compensation) [2014] EWHC 392 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 134 (Mar) and, specifically, his findings, views and observations in relation to the application of the concept of compensation.
At the beginning of his judgment, Mostyn J made the point that the case should have been “a simple case to resolve”. Instead, it required three days before him (at a combined cost of over £350,000) due to two complications which had prevented a settlement from being reached.
The first complication was the emphasis placed by the husband on a Dutch pre-marital agreement that had been entered into the day before the marriage, when the wife had already been expecting the parties’ first child. The second complication was a claim by the wife that her periodical payments award should be significantly enhanced under the principle of compensation. While Mostyn J was
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
