(ii) “All the circumstances”: there are many cases today in which, since Edgar Edgar, the Court has conducted a thorough analysis of the circumstances in which the parties entered into their agreement, in order to determine whether there are “good and essential reasons” for finding that an injustice is achieved by the application of the conditions achieved.23 The most recent example of this in-depth review is in the case of NG/KR with respect to a pre-marital agreement and, of course, Mcleod with respect to the post-marital agreement24. “In order to determine the weight to be obtained in the event of non-pretension to a lump sum, it is necessary to take into account the conduct of both parties that led to the previous agreement and their subsequent conduct accordingly … The general argument that formal agreements, which are concluded properly and fairly with competent legal advice, should not be ousted unless there is good and substantial reason to conclude that injustice will occur by maintaining the terms of their agreement. The principles of “ultimate purpose” and “strands of fairness” as grouped in “needs, balance and division” must be considered a fundamental aspect of this last phase of the process, according to the White/White and Miller/Macfarlane30 guidelines, namely whether the terms of the marital agreement remain “in all circumstances” fair. (i) Anticipation of separation: Until Mcleod`s decision, the rule was that any agreement or agreement reached by a couple before or during the marriage that anticipated their future separation was contrary to public policy and not was concluded.8 (i) “Formal Legal Notes,” 😀 the Court of Justice has made it clear to Edgar that the necessary analysis of a pre-agreement under Section 25 should not be limited to compliance or not with recognized treaty principles. In any event, if the principles of the contract were not respected, if the principles of the treaty were not respected, the court would not take into account, except exceptionally, to the extent relevant, the terms of an agreement on which it is based. 22 In this case, it was a married couple who separated in 1975. After the separation, the parties reached an agreement that gave the woman approximately $100,000 to resettle and resettle the children. The wife accepted that in the event of a future divorce, she would not claim a package or orders to transfer assets to the husband. An act of separation was drafted in these terms and the woman signed the contract, although she was told that she was entitled to a much larger sum, because the husband was an extremely wealthy multimillionaire. [20] It is clear that this declaration of law requires a change in the particular relationship between spouses that I have outlined.

Nevertheless, I am aware that, in order to reverse the agreement, I must be convinced that this woman`s will was exceeded by her husband, who exerted inappropriate pressure or influence on her. “[15] All of these cases depend on DerItien, and this is a very exceptional case of their facts, but if there is a paradigm case in which the court will not only consider the marital agreement as one of the marginal factors in this case, but as a magnetic significance factor, it seems to me that this is such a case. With respect to the second and third reasons that the judge was bound by the provisions of r 2.61, I am not persuaded, as the judge did, that these individual rules should be a kind of shackle that opposes reasonable case management. In particular, I would like to underline the general objectives that govern all these rules, formulated carefully and in their entirety in 2.51D. It is easy to associate this case with a number of objectives that have been formulated in it, with its facts. It is very important that the judge in handling the case should try to reduce costs. It is very important that he strives to deal with the matter in a manner appropriate to the financial situation of the parties.