The parties had settled their action, and the compromise agreement embodied as a schedule to the court order. The claimant now appealed against an order refusing to allow him to enforce the agreement by action within the original proceedings, instead insisting that a new process be begun.
Held: The appeal failed. The applicant was seeking relief against the trustees outside the ambit of the compromise itself. Sargent J had been exactly right.
Cozens-Hardy MR LJ said: ‘But apart from that, although that alone is a sufficient ground for dismissing this appeal, there is also this further ground – namely, that this is an attempt to enforce, not a title under the will, which alone was dealt with by the trustees’ summons, but an entirely new and independent bargain between the husband and the wife, and that could not be done in the old proceedings.’
Judges:
Cozens-Hardy MR LJ
Citations:
(1913) 108 LT 737
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – In Re Hearn, De Bertodano v Hearn (No.1) ChD 1913
W, living apart from H, asked the court to decide questions as to the will of H’s father, including a determination as to whether H had forfeited a life interest in certain property. Before the application was heard a ‘complex consent order’ was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.470662
