Terry & Co Home

Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


Judge still not agreed our consent order

Posted by Slowdivorce 
Judge still not agreed our consent order
March 10, 2020 07:06PM
Without going into too much detail here. But the judge still hasn't agreed to our fianciancial consent order, 8 weeks ago he asked for a copy of our declaration of trust. And now he's thrown up some quiries about how come the trust was signed prior too marriage and the birth of our child. What the figure we agreed at mediation relates too and how our child is being supported. My ex desperately wants her money we agreed last may at mediation, she actually apologised is text about making me feel pressured in agreeing to it. I want to remortgage asp but can't. If what we agreed at mediation is going to be thrown out why should anyone even consider going to mediation in the first place? Surely its better for 2 parties to agree together how everything should be settled then made binding at that point than to send a load of documents back and forth to the overstretched courts who doesn't know how amicable we're trying to be for the good of our child. I would say in our case this judge wants us to Go back and fight out to line their own pockets.
Re: Judge still not agreed our consent order
March 11, 2020 10:33AM
No, the judge does not want you to go back and fight. Judges have quite enough to fill their time without encouraging people to litigate disputes. There is not a judge in the country who would not prefer parties to come to an agreement.

However, you are confusing this with something else. Many people think that if they are agreed then that is that but the fact is that it isn't. The courts exercise an independent discretion. They will not approve any agreement they think is unfair. Sometimes what looks unfair on the face of it may become less unfair if further explanation is provided. Therefore if judge thinks further explanation will help then he/she will seek that further information rather than reject an application out of hand.

What is fair in any particular case may be anywhere along a broad spectrum but if on the face of it any given agreement looks to fall outside even that broad spectrum a judge will not approve it. The factors which a court has to take into account are laid down by law and those factors take precedence over whether there is agreement or not. Two people can agree a contract of slavery if they want but there is not a court in the country which would approve such an agreement or enable it to be enforced.

Incidentally, what mediators are usually interested in is fostering agreement. That does not mean to say that any such agreement is necessarily fair. Say, for instance, after a twenty year marriage A says that he/she wants everything and B says, 'I agree'. That is the end as far as a mediator is concerned. Whether such an agreement is fair would be a wholly different issue and that is what a judge has to decide. Most agreements reached at mediation are broadly fair but that is not to say that all are.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login