Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007]
Share
Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ 969 is an English contract law case that reaffirms the principle that a unilateral contract cannot be revoked by the promisor once the promisee has commenced performance of the specified condition. The case draws parallels to classic unilateral contracts such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [1892].
The divorced couple had a court order requiring the husband to pay the wife £12,000 annually as part of their divorce settlement in 1986. In 1993, they mutually agreed that the wife would not seek further annual payments, and in return, she would receive £100,000 after the husband's death. The husband ceased the periodic payments and modified his will to include the £100,000 bequest. However, the husband remarried in 2002, leading to the automatic revocation of his previous will. He died on the same day. The wife sued the husband's personal representative for the £100,000, claiming a breach of their contract.
The central issue was whether the 1993 agreement void for ousting the jurisdiction of the court and whether the parties establish a binding, enforceable contract in the 1993 agreement. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimant. The 1993 agreement, properly interpreted, did not oust the court's jurisdiction. The wife did not promise to give up her right to apply to the court; she agreed to forfeit the £100,000 bequest if she pursued legal action. Despite the domestic relationship, the parties clearly intended to alter their legal relations. The agreement was deemed an enforceable contract, and the defendant was found in breach of the contract. The claimant was entitled to the £100,000.
Agreements explicitly or implicitly ousting the court's jurisdiction are void. Contracts not placing a party in breach for seeking court intervention do not oust the court's jurisdiction. Contracts for the mutual variation of an ancillary relief order are valid and capable of specific performance, even without a confirming court order, unless void for public policy reasons.
The case establishes the principle that agreements should not oust the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, it confirms the validity of contracts for the mutual variation of ancillary relief orders, allowing for specific performance, unless void for public policy reasons.
The divorced couple had a court order requiring the husband to pay the wife £12,000 annually as part of their divorce settlement in 1986. In 1993, they mutually agreed that the wife would not seek further annual payments, and in return, she would receive £100,000 after the husband's death. The husband ceased the periodic payments and modified his will to include the £100,000 bequest. However, the husband remarried in 2002, leading to the automatic revocation of his previous will. He died on the same day. The wife sued the husband's personal representative for the £100,000, claiming a breach of their contract.
The central issue was whether the 1993 agreement void for ousting the jurisdiction of the court and whether the parties establish a binding, enforceable contract in the 1993 agreement. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimant. The 1993 agreement, properly interpreted, did not oust the court's jurisdiction. The wife did not promise to give up her right to apply to the court; she agreed to forfeit the £100,000 bequest if she pursued legal action. Despite the domestic relationship, the parties clearly intended to alter their legal relations. The agreement was deemed an enforceable contract, and the defendant was found in breach of the contract. The claimant was entitled to the £100,000.
Agreements explicitly or implicitly ousting the court's jurisdiction are void. Contracts not placing a party in breach for seeking court intervention do not oust the court's jurisdiction. Contracts for the mutual variation of an ancillary relief order are valid and capable of specific performance, even without a confirming court order, unless void for public policy reasons.
The case establishes the principle that agreements should not oust the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, it confirms the validity of contracts for the mutual variation of ancillary relief orders, allowing for specific performance, unless void for public policy reasons.
