The parties separated and were engaged in a matrimonial property dispute. A previous Order set down the matter for a Rule 7.1 hearing to determine the validity and scope of a pre-nuptial agreement and the scope of a second agreement. Rule 7.1 allows the Court, on application, to order a question to be heard independently from a larger claim to streamline litigation.

Justice Ho confirmed the validity of the pre-nuptial agreement but directed that that the scope of the second agreement ought to be determined at Trial in accordance with Rule 7.1(d) unless the parties mutually agreed to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process or otherwise reach a resolution. The Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to evaluate several of the principles and that it would be inappropriate to make findings based on the limited record that may interfere with the Trial Judge’s ability to address any remaining issues at Trial.