I think he thought in the same sense that I think myself, namely that the existence of this agreement, given the circumstances in which it occurred, at least obliges the wife, if she wants to justify alimony, to provide prima facie evidence that there are unforeseen circumstances. in the true sense of the word, which prevents him from working or maintaining himself in another way. If this is true, I think it is quite clear that the woman here has never given such prima facie evidence. This case concerned a married couple who had separated in 1975. After the separation, the parties reached an agreement under which the woman received around £100,000 to pull herself together and accommodate the children. The wife agreed that in the event of a future divorce, she would not seek lump sum or orders to transfer the husband`s assets. A separation title was drafted in these terms and the wife signed the agreement, although she was informed that she was entitled to a much larger sum since the husband was an extremely wealthy multimillionaire. Since 1980, agreements between the parties on the division of property in the event of divorce have been referred to as “Edgar Agreements,” as I mentioned above, and the court`s approach to maintaining or derogating from the terms of these agreements remains largely the same. Given the correspondence between the parties` advisers, to which my gentleman has already alluded, this statement of their motives is not convincing to say the least, although their insistence on the agreement, as is the case in the correspondence, certainly confirms her open admission that she desperately wanted to leave.
. . .