Judge favours divorcing couple’s written agreement in ongoing dispute

A Family Court judge has settled a dispute between a divorcing couple who had reached a voluntary financial settlement but then continued to argue over specific details. He said the court should generally favour the contents of the written agreement reached between the parties.

Joanne Grey Senior Associate Solicitor in our family law team reports on this recent case.

Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, His Honour Judge Hess was asked to resolve five outstanding issues after the couple agreed a financial deal through negotiation between their legal teams, without requiring a court ruling.

On 11 March 2025, both parties told the judge they were Xydhias-bound — meaning they accepted that the deal was legally binding, even though a formal court order had not yet been signed. However, when the case returned to court on 17 March, they remained in disagreement over some key points.

The couple, referred to as THR and WAT, were in dispute over the valuation of a company owned by the wife, the treatment of legal costs, whether interest should be added to future payments, security for lump sums, and the level of child maintenance.

On the first three issues, Judge Hess ruled that the husband was bound by the original offer letter, which had not included the disputed company valuation or any reference to interest. He said the husband should be held to the figures in his own offer and rejected the suggestion that any omissions were due to a “mutual mistake”.

The judge also declined to impose interest on delayed lump sums, noting that the wife had time to raise the issue during negotiations. He said: “There was time to raise this if it was important.”

On the question of financial security, Judge Hess accepted the husband’s voluntary offer, describing it as “reasonable in all of the circumstances” and pointing out that he had already made a goodwill payment of £5 million early in the case.

Only child maintenance had been identified in advance as unresolved. Judge Hess considered rival proposals and followed the approach set out in James v Seymour [2023] EWHC 844, stating: “The needs of children must be finite whatever the payer’s income.”

He set child maintenance at £25,000 per child per year for each of the couple’s three children.

For more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law please contact Joanne on 01434 320362 or click here to send her an email.