Circumstances where court will review previously agreed terms
In a recent case of KC v TC the High Court were asked to revise a previously agreed division of sale proceeds of a property with the applicant claiming that the proceeds were insufficient to make proper provision. However, the court held that the difference between the actual sale proceeds and the anticipated sale proceeds were not significant to justify a review.
The court stated that it did have jurisdiction to review the previously agreed split pursuant to section 18 (2) of the 1995 Act but could only do so in circumstances where there was new evidence before the court or a change in circumstances.
The court had regard to the statement by Denham J in YJ v NG i.e. that the court’s obligation was to make proper provision and not a redistribution of wealth.
It also had regard to comments by Abbott J in the case by AK v JK i.e. if the terms made proper provision at the time and if the parties’ circumstances have not changed then it follows that these terms must still constitute proper provision.
The court refused the applicant’s request to revise the terms previously agreed.
If you want to find out more about family law please do not hesitate to contact Brendan Dillon on 2960666