Rose V Rose Agreement

2. The real issue between the parties, however, was the price to be paid by the husband for a clean break. A reasonable agreement had been reached between the parents on a joint residence order, under which the children divided their time between the former Chelsea Square building and a makeshift house rented by the woman nearby. But sometimes and inevitably there will be times when, I think, the parties will say that they have been unfairly overwhelmed by a combination of opportunity, justice and difficult legal advice. This is by no way a critique of this very useful system, much less a critique of this experienced judge. But I think we have to make sure that the parties, when they make agreements with these FDRs, do so on a totally voluntary basis. A respite or a time for reflection can sometimes be a wise precaution before drawing any final conclusions. If you contract the strands, it is clear that: (i) each case depends on its own facts, (ii) Xydhia`s case is a good starting point when it comes to determining whether an agreement has been reached, and (iii) in the context of a procedure against financial remedies, in considering the existence of an agreement reached, the Court has (a) discretion as to whether negotiations should be considered without prejudice and (b) to consider any agreement within the criteria set out in Section 25[vii] and (iv) any party wishing to separate from a properly negotiated agreement may be a fee-for-service. In the case of Rose/Rose [2002] EWCA Civ 208, after a long FDR that was certainly not reduced to the letter, the parties had been authorized by the judge who ran the FDR and were then reduced to a draft decision by a lawyer. The husband wanted to withdraw from the agreement and the appeal process was whether he had the right to do so.

The Court of Appeal stated: In the present circumstances, the agreement is an imperfect decision of the Court of Justice that no authority has been cited when a party requests release between the adoption of the decision and its subsequent development and that « the purpose and effect of the FDR is lost or compromised if the parties are free to analyze and re-evaluate a decisive decision of the previous day or the previous week in order to decide the outcome of their decision. »