Well, if a judge gives directions for something to happen, there is no point in argueing.
The problem comes where the applicant did not tell the whole truth within her form E.
She \"loaned\" £50k to her parents. But told judge is was re-paid. However, only part of funds have been repaid, so she has potentially \"hidden' money from the judge. The applicabts barrister also confirmed to me , when I asked where the balance of the loan monies are ...she replied. I dont know.
Without knowing more about the financial circumstances, it is very hard to comment on the fairness or otherwise of the agreement.
It sounds like there was an application to have the first hearing held as an FDR . This is a hearing at which the judge can give directions and the parties may settle by agreement.
If there is/was serious doubt about the assets then you should not have agreed to the order. If you had valid reasons, then it is unlikely there would be a costs order against you.
Did you raise questions abut the loan in your questionnaire? If you can show that assets were concealed,, you may be able to apply to have the order overturned. Before you consider this route, it is a good idea to get legal advice about the likelihood of success.
How long were you married? Are there children to consider? How old are you both? What is in your respective pension pots?
I agreed at the time because the judge indicated that if she was deciding the case at the final hearing, then at pension sharing order would be favourable outcome.
It appeared at the time that the only option available to me, was to agree to a PSO.
However, after further study of my wife's form E, it appears it is possible that she has 'hidden' funds by moving them to her parents bank account as a \"loan\"
This is unfair that the judge gave this order.