Xydhias v Xydhias
Once the parties to financial remedy proceedings have reached a binding agreement in principle, the court can make an order in those terms, even if one party later tries to withdraw before the order is drawn up.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Xydhias negotiated a settlement of their financial claims before the final hearing, and reached agreement on the main terms, through letters between their solicitors. Before the consent order was finalised, Mr Xydhias withdrew from the agreement, and Mrs Xydhias asked the court to make an order in the agreed terms. The judge made the order, and Mr Xydhias appealed, arguing that there was no binding contract.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Thorpe LJ said that the ordinary law of contract does not apply to agreements in financial remedy proceedings, because the court has to decide what order is appropriate under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. However, where the parties have reached an agreement on the essential terms, the court can hold them to it, applying the approach in Edgar v Edgar, unless there are good reasons not to. The court could therefore make an order in the terms of the agreement, even though one party had tried to withdraw from it.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410
- Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
- Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
