H told W he would pay her pounds 15 a week as long as he had it. She issued a writ claiming payment of arrears of maintenance due.
Held: The agreement was unenforceable, since it was not sufficiently certain.
Lord Denning MR (dissenting) said: ‘I hold, therefore, that an oral separation agreement by which the husband agrees to pay the wife so much a week is legally enforceable. There is ample consideration for such agreement.’
Edmund Davies LJ thought the agreement was too vague to be enforced but: ‘There can be no doubt that husband and wife can enter into a contract which binds them in law. Peters (Executors) v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1941] 2 All E.R. 620 and the recent decision of Stamp J. in Merritt v. Merritt, ‘The Times,’ May 15th, 1969, afford examples of this. But it is upon the spouse asserting that such a contract has been entered into to prove the assertion: see the observations of Atkin L.J. in Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 K.B. 571, 580 . . In the general run of cases the inclination would be against inferring that spouses intended to create a legal relationship: see Lord Hodson in Pettitt v. Pettitt [1969] 2 W.L.R. 966, 983. The evidence establishing such an intention needs, in my judgment, to be clear and convincing.’
Megaw LJ agreed with Edmund Davies LJ.
Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies LJ, Megaw LJ
[1970] 1 QB 275
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Soulsbury v Soulsbury CA 10-Oct-2007
The claimant was the first wife of the deceased. She said that the deceased had promised her a substantial cash sum in his will in return for not pursuing him for arrears of maintenance. The will made no such provision, and she sought payment from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.259831