Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Following their divorce in 1986, Mr. Soulsbury was ordered to pay Ms. Soulsbury £12,000 annually. In 1993, they agreed that Ms. Soulsbury would forgo further annual payments in exchange for a £100,000 bequest upon Mr. Soulsbury's death. Mr. Soulsbury modified his will to include this bequest but remarried in 2002, automatically revoking his previous will. He died on the same day. Ms. Soulsbury claimed the £100,000 bequest from his estate, arguing that the agreement was binding and not subject to revocation.

Issue: Was the 1993 agreement void for ousting the court's jurisdiction, and was it a binding contract that could be enforced despite the subsequent revocation of the will?

Held: The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Ms. Soulsbury. The 1993 agreement did not oust the court's jurisdiction, as Ms. Soulsbury had not waived her right to seek legal recourse. The agreement was enforceable, as it was a mutual variation of the ancillary relief order, and Mr. Soulsbury was found in breach of the contract. Ms. Soulsbury was entitled to the £100,000.

Key Judicial Statement: The court affirmed, "Agreements that oust the jurisdiction of the court are void. However, contracts for the mutual variation of an ancillary relief order are valid and enforceable, allowing for specific performance, unless void for public policy reasons."

💡Leveluplaw: This case reinforces the principle that unilateral contracts cannot be revoked once the promisee has commenced performance. It also confirms that agreements altering ancillary relief orders are enforceable, provided they do not oust the court's jurisdiction. The decision illustrates the binding nature of contractual agreements made in the context of divorce settlements and the court’s role in ensuring such agreements are upheld unless contrary to public policy.