Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Divorce settlement dispute: oral agreement not legally binding without evidence of complete terms
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court has ruled that an oral settlement in a divorce case was not legally binding due to the absence of evidence demonstrating a complete and unconditional agreement. The case, originally heard in the Circuit Family Court, was brought to the High Court on appeal. The husband claimed that a settlement had been reached orally, which should be recognised by the court. However, the wife contested the existence of a legally binding settlement. The High Court found that while oral settlements can be legally achieved in family law proceedings, there must be clear evidence of a "complete and certain" agreement, which was not present in this case. The court directed that if the husband wishes to argue that a settlement was indeed reached, evidence must be presented at a subsequent hearing. Otherwise, the appeal will proceed as a contested matter.
divorce, judicial separation, oral settlement, legally binding agreement, family law proceedings, Supreme Court, Circuit Family Court, evidence, contract law, property adjustment orders, Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act, 2009, proper provision, spousal autonomy, matrimonial legislation, enforceability, compromise of litigation, conditional agreement.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
