The court reviewing the wife`s appeal ordered that the wife`s application to issue an order within the meaning of the agreement be considered as a preliminary issue with an estimate of the two-day time and that she give appropriate instructions for the filing of an affidavit and documents relevant to the issue of the case. If you contract the strands, it is clear that: (i) each case depends on its own facts, (ii) the case of Xydhia 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. Perhaps the most typical example of a comparative conference is a case of personal injury. The plaintiff (usually an injured victim) and the defendant (often an insurance company) agree on the amount of compensation the defendant will pay to the plaintiff for his injuries. It is based on the evidence provided by the applicant, as well as on the extent of his prejudice and the associated costs. Often, the parties exchange several counter-offers before obtaining one for both parties. Guidance on the application of a transaction concluded prior to the adoption of the procedure is available through practical guidance: application of transaction agreements concluded prior to the appeal. [i] Edgar/Edgar  1 WLR 1410, in which the Court held, in the course of the appeal proceedings, that the woman in that case was required, by a prior agreement, not to invoke a lump sum in treating that agreement as the conduct of the parties to be considered when considering the criteria of Section 25 of the Marital Cases Act of 1973. [ii] Please note that the 2010 Family Procedure Regulations contain a definition of “no prejudice” in section 2.2 (Interpretation) which reads: “Without prejudice, settlement negotiations are generally “unprejudiced,” which means that the circumstances under which the content of these trials are disclosed to the Court are very limited” and the glossary is defined as ” 2.2 (1) The glossary at the end of these rules is a guide to the meaning of certain legal expressions in the rules, but should not understand that it gives these expressions any meaning in the rules they generally do not have in the law. [iii] As in the sharland cases against Sharland  UKSC 60 and Gohill/Gohill [2-15] UKSC 61.