The High Court has ruled that an oral compromise can be reached in family law proceedings, but declined to find that a settlement had been concluded in an appeal over a divorce and related orders.
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2025, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the court’s exchanges with counsel on 25 March did not show that the parties had reached a complete and unconditional agreement. The husband may still seek to prove that an agreement was reached, but the judge had heard no evidence on that issue.
The appeal followed Circuit Family Court orders made in July 2022, when proceedings brought by the wife for judicial separation were converted into divorce proceedings and ancillary orders were made. The husband later obtained an extension of time to appeal. The High Court heard the appeal on 25 and 26 March 2025. The husband’s son was joined as a notice party in March 2025 and attended the hearing.
After negotiations on 25 March, counsel for the wife told the court the case had settled and needed to be put in writing. The judge allowed time for the parties to prepare terms or return the next morning. The following day, the wife said she was no longer satisfied with the arrangements and disputed that there was a legally binding settlement. The husband maintained that the matter had settled. The judge said she had not been given the alleged terms and had heard no evidence about whether an agreement had been reached.
The judge concluded that oral settlements are legally possible in family law proceedings. Whether one was concluded, and what its terms were, would depend on evidence and the ordinary rules governing agreement. A binding agreement must be complete and certain, with no outstanding conditionality or significant steps or terms still to be agreed.
The judgment also addressed the requirement for written evidence in contracts for the sale or disposition of land. The judge said a compromise of divorce or judicial separation proceedings is not itself such a land contract: it may instead include an agreement to ask the court to make orders concerning land. Any compromise remains subject to the court’s statutory duty to consider proper provision. The judge said the settlement would be one relevant circumstance, rather than automatically determining that question.
The court directed that a two-day hearing slot be provided. The husband can choose whether to pursue the settlement issue by presenting evidence. If he does, the matter may be listed for case management and directions; if he does not, or if the claim fails, the substantive appeal may proceed in the ordinary way. The judge left open whether another judge should hear the substantive matter if the settlement claim is unsuccessful.