Hyman v Hyman – Summary

296 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601

Courts will not enforce contracts which frustrate Acts of Parliament.

Facts:

The appellant, Mr Hyman, was married to respondent. He left her to live with another woman. Both he and the respondent executed a deed of separation in which he covenanted to pay his wife £2000 alimony as well as a weekly sum of £20 for her maintenance during her life. The wife in return covenanted not to petition any court for further alimony or maintenance other than the sums that had already been agreed. After divorcing her husband, she petitioned the court for maintenance. At first instance the court ordered that the deed did not prevent the wife from claiming maintenance. The husband appealed.

Issues:

The ex-husband argued that the respondent was still bound by her covenant in the deed of separation not to petition the court for permanent maintenance even though they had divorced. He also argued that public policy required that contracts should be kept and covenants honoured, and that he was simply keeping his ex-wife to her bargain.

Held:

Their Lordships held that there was no provision in the covenant terminating it on dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, it still operated. However, Lord Hailsham said that under the Judicature Act 1925  s.190(1), a court had discretion to make an order granting such sums of maintenance as it thought reasonable and order payment of alimony that it thought just.  The agreement in the deed amounted to a covenant not to bring proceedings. This would have ousted the jurisdiction of the court to make such orders. Therefore, it was illegal and invalid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.      

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

www.ry-diplomer.com

Станокс купить

Был найден мной авторитетный веб портал со статьями про алиэкспресс чехол на телефон https://topobzor.info/chehly-dlja-telefonov-i-smartfonov-na-alijekspress-iz-kitaja/

Current Offers