• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Coercive and controlling behaviour: a cautionary tale?

In a recently reported case (Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27), the Wife claimed that she was subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by the Husband and that as a consequence she was unable to enter freely into a post-nuptial agreement (the “PNA”) they had signed on 4 November 2018. She said it should be afforded no effect as a result. Ultimately this argument backfired for the Wife as not only did the judge (Sir Jonathan Cohen) rule against her on this issue, he also penalised her on the issue of costs for seeking to run this argument at all.  

Background

The parties separated in 2018 and started negotiating a separation agreement. However they subsequently reconciled (at least for a period) and converted the separation agreement into the PNA.

When the parties separated (again) in the summer of 2020, the Wife claimed she had been unable to enter into the PNA freely due to the alleged coercive and controlling behaviour of the Husband (which she said included verbal abuse, shouting, screaming, and threats of physical violence). The Wife also argued that the agreement did not meet her needs and that she had a sharing claim against the Husband’s assets.

The Husband denied all the allegations, stating that in any event there was no causal connection between the alleged behaviour  and the Wife’s state of mind at the time that she negotiated and entered into the PNA. He said she entered into the PNA freely and with a full understanding of its implications.

Coercive and controlling behaviour

The judge summarised the previous case law and concluded that the 40 year old test from the case of Edgar v Edgar [1981] 2 FLR 19 had stood the test of time. He said the comments made in that case relating to “undue pressure” could encompass what is now referred to as coercive and controlling behaviour.

After hearing evidence and undertaking a detailed analysis (over a period of two days), the judge ruled that the Husband’s behaviour could not be described as coercive or controlling and that in any event it had not led to the Wife entering into the PNA not of her own free will.

Interestingly, the judge did find that due to the Wife’s psychological state (she had been assessed as suffering from Complex PTSD and a depressive disorder) and her previous history of reactive depression following relationship breakups (at the end of both her first marriage and a subsequent relationship), she had been deprived of the ability to make a rational and considered decision as to what was in her best interests. Crucially, however, this had not been caused by the Husband’s conduct.

Assessment

The judge then undertook the usual assessment of the relevant statutory factors and the PNA (which is beyond the scope of this post).

The factors that weighed against upholding the PNA were the fact that the agreement was negotiated against a backdrop of reconciliation (not separation), the Wife’s desire to “keep the marriage going” and the fact the PNA was not comprehensive as it did not properly address the issue of pension provision. On the other hand, the judge thought it relevant that it was in fact the Wife who had proposed the terms of the PNA and that she had been satisfied that it met her needs.

After undertaking this assessment, the judge decided that the PNA did not adequately meet the Wife’s financial needs and ruled that she required a total payment of c£378,000 from the Husband in order to meet those needs. To place that in the context of the parties’ positions, before trial the Husband was offering c£305,000 and the Wife was asking for just over £1m.

Outcome

Although the judge did not uphold the PNA, this was not due to the alleged coercive and controlling behaviour but rather because it did not meet the Wife’s needs (which was an argument the Wife was running in addition to her case on coercive control). Accordingly, he criticised the Wife for wasting two days of Court time on what was considered to be an “unnecessary” issue. He also criticised her for her unreasonable negotiating stance and the amount she had spent on legal fees (over £400,000, c£150,000 more than the Husband).

As a result, whilst making an order that the Husband pay the Wife c£450,000 (to meet her needs of c£378,000 and to pay off some of her outstanding legal costs), the judge deliberately left the Wife with a liability of around £80,000 to her solicitors which she would need to meet herself, so in effect a deduction from her award. Had the Wife taken a more reasonable approach to the litigation and not made the allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, she would likely have avoided being penalised in this fashion.

So whilst it is clear that coercive and controlling behaviour is capable of being a relevant factor when assessing what weight to attach to a pre or post-nuptial agreement, it must be pleaded with caution and only when necessary.

“I very much regret that so much energy has been devoted to exploring this subject. The emotional and financial consequences on the parties has been considerable. It has also been entirely unnecessary. […] That W is left with a costs bill to pay is entirely the result of her prodigal expenditure on costs and her approach to this litigation.”

Our thinking

  • Arbitrating shareholders’ disputes

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • The Wealth Net profiles Sarah Rowley, Head of Charities and Philanthropy

    Sarah Rowley

    In the Press

  • William Marriott and Sophie Clark write for EG Magazine on structuring the bank of mum and dad and family trusts

    William Marriott

    In the Press

  • Dominic Lawrance and Catrin Harrison write for Tax Journal on the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ‘A Taxpayer v HMRC’

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • BBC Radio 5 Live and The Telegraph interview Sarah Jane Boon on Labour’s plans for cohabitation reform

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • Something Changed – Landlord recovers possession of iconic music venue

    Samuel Lear

    Quick Reads

  • When is 20% not 20%? The real impact of the proposed changes to business property relief on trading companies

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Joseph Evans, Cassidy Fan and Jessica Boxford write for New Law Journal on the future of insolvency: a digital asset revolution

    Joseph Evans

    In the Press

  • Cohabitation law reform

    Hannah Owen

    Quick Reads

  • Relocating to Switzerland: trusts

    Alexia Egger Castillo

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys finds that Gen Z prioritises financial planning and saving amidst growing economic challenges

    Sally Ashford

    News

  • Law 360 quotes Stewart Hey on the potential integration of the PSR into the FCA and the impact on APP fraud reimbursement

    Stewart Hey

    In the Press

  • The Path to Commonhold is Set in Stone by the Government: What do landlords and developers need to know about the Government’s White Paper on Commonhold?

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

  • Singaporean Court Declines to Revisit SIAC Registrar’s Administrative Decision

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • "I have finished the court case and I have decided that now is not the right time for you to see your Mum" - Judges writing letters to children could become the norm

    Matt Foster

    Quick Reads

  • New "In-House Counsel Privilege" in Swiss law

    Pierre Bydzovsky

    Insights

  • The World’s Most Exclusive Gold Card

    Kurt Rademacher

    Quick Reads

  • What do the proposed changes to business property relief mean for Investors and Entrepreneurs and their businesses?

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • Swiss Anti-Corruption Laws: A Guide to Bribery Offences, Compliance, and Penalties

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - the inheritance tax Consultation on agricultural and business property

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

Back to top