69. I therefore come to the overall search for a fair outcome in this case. The existence of the agreement and its terms are only an essential element of this study, although an important element in light of my findings. Mr. Pointer and Ms. Gray argue that, in this context, there is another obstacle for the husband before I can give considerable weight to the agreement.70 It is clear from the husband`s general proposal that he is not concerned, in the course of this procedure, to implement the full terms of the marriage agreement. On two key points, it accepts that there should be a derogation from its conditions. In particular, it no longer attempts to calculate the lump sum payable to the woman from a base line of $600,000, indexed upwards or downwards, based on an increase in the RPI or a decrease in the total calculation of her net assets. In the current version, there is no „ground“ or safety net with respect to the claim to women`s capital.
If the man`s existing capital base had been completely destroyed until his divorce was winded down, it would have received nothing under the terms of the agreement. In fact, as the agreed timetable for assets 3 shows, his overall wealth is now more or less the same as in 2008, when the parties married. 71. Instead, he proposes to pay a lump sum of $750,000 in addition to the $300,000 he has already made available to the woman to assume ongoing liability for court costs. To the extent that a balance totalling $1.05 million that is not pissed in costs remains, it accepts that it retains it as part of its price. In addition to this amount, she will keep other assets on her behalf, to which I will soon be. The second derogation under the terms of the marriage agreement with respect to its open offer is its willingness to use the support element of the agreement on a lifetime basis. The proposed figure is $537,000, which is a linear Duxbury calculation based on their actuarial life expectancy.72 In these circumstances, Mr.
Pointer argues that it is not for the husband to choose the conditions that should be applied and the conditions that should not be applied. Instead, the Tribunal must review the entire agreement to determine whether or not it is a fair agreement. I accept that proposal. However, with respect to the weight of the agreement, its main driver`s force in this case, as I have already said, is that it registers the wife`s consent to the husband`s clear intent and that it recognizes that its fundamental advantage lies in the protection of its pre-contract property, to the extent that it is legally permissible.