sonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelvaycasino girişpusulabet girişpusulabet girişpusulabetpusulabetvaycasinoholiganbetvaycasino girişholiganbetvaycasinovaycasino girişvaycasinomatbet girişgameofbetvdcasinomatbetgrandpashabetgrandpashabetmatbet girişmatbetエクスネスmatbetmatbet girişmatbetpusulabetjojobetMeritbetmeritbet girişMeritbetVaycasinoBetasusBetkolikMeritbetmeritbetMeritbet girişMeritbetgalabetenobahis girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasiveracasivera girişcasivalcasival girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişbovbetbovbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişkralbet girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişgalabetgalabet girişenobahisenobahis girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasiveracasivera girişcasivalcasival girişcasinoroyal girişcasinoroyalbovbetbovbet girişgobahisgobahis girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişgobahisgobahis girişgalabetgalabet girişcasivalcasival girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişcasiveracasivera girişbovbetbovbet girişkralbet girişenobahisenobahis girişenobahisenobahis girişkralbetkralbet girişbovbetbovbet girişcasiveracasivera girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyalceltabetceltabet girişenbetenbet girişcasivalcasival girişgalabetgalabet girişgobahisgobahis girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişgiftcardmall/mygifthiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişgobahisgobahis girişgalabetgalabet girişcasivalcasival girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişenobahisenobahis girişkralbetkralbet girişbovbetbovbet girişcasiveracasivera girişkralbetkralbet girişcasiveracasivera girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişgobahisgobahis girişgalabetgalabet girişcasivalcasival girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişenobahisenobahis girişbovbetbovbet girişaresbetaresbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetnanobetnano girişceltabetceltabet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişbetciobetcio girişcasivalcasival girişcasiveracasivera girişenbetenbet girişenobahisenobahis girişsüratbetsüratbet girişibizabetibizabet girişenobahisenobahis girişsüratbetsüratbet girişaresbetaresbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetnanobetnano girişceltabetceltabet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişbetciobetcio girişcasiveracasivera girişenbetenbet girişcasivalcasival girişibizabetibizabet girişgrandbettinggrandbetting girişhilarionbethilarionbet girişkingbettingkingbettinglordpalace casinolordpalace girişluxbetluxbet girişmasterbettingmasterbetting girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişmeybetmeybet girişmillibahismillibahis girişmilosbetmilosbet girişmislibetmislibet girişorisbetorisbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişjojobetjojobet girişjojobetjojobet girişkingroyalkingroyal girişkingroyalkingroyal girişcratosroyalbetcratosroyalbet girişcratosroyalbetcratosroyalbet girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişaresbetaresbet girişlunabetlunabet girişenbetenbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetasusbetasus girişbahiscasinobahiscasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişbetkolikbetkolik girişgrandbettinggrandbetting girişmavibetmavibetnakitbahisnakitbahismeritkingmeritkinglunabetlunabetartemisbetartemisbetkavbetkavbetbetsmovebetsmovematbetmatbetbetkolikbetkolik girişgrandbettinggrandbetting girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişaresbetaresbet girişlunabetlunabet girişenbetenbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetasusbetasus girişbahiscasinobahiscasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişmeritkingmeritkingbetcio girişlunabetlunabetnakitbahisbetcionakitbahisbetsmovebetciobetsmovemavibetmillibahis girişmavibetmillibahismarsbahismillibahismarsbahispalacebet girişartemisbetpalacebetartemisbetpalacebetcoinbarcoinbarkingbetting girişodeonbetodeonbetkingbettingkingbettingnesinecasino girişnesinecasinonesinecasinorinabet girişrinabetrinabetromabet girişromabetromabetsonbahis girişsonbahissonbahisibizabet girişibizabetibizabetsüratbet girişsüratbetsüratbetteosbet girişteosbetteosbetbetasus girişbetasusbetasusroyalbet girişroyalbetroyalbetmasterbetting girişmasterbettingmasterbettingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingbetticketbetticketbetyapbetyapcasinomilyoncasinomilyoncasinoroyalcasinoroyalcasivalcasivalcasiveracasiveraceltabetceltabetefesbetefesbetenobahisenobahisgalabetgalabetgobahisgobahisalobetalobetkulisbetkulisbetvipslotvipslotkalebetkalebet
Skip to content
Home » Hyman v Hyman

Hyman v Hyman

The decision in Hyman v Hyman is a leading authority in UK law on the limits of contractual freedom in matrimonial matters. The case establishes an important constitutional principle: courts will not enforce agreements that frustrate or undermine an Act of Parliament. 

In particular, parties cannot, by private agreement, prevent a court from exercising a statutory discretion conferred upon it.

The judgment in Hyman v Hyman clarifies that while separation agreements are generally valid, they cannot operate in a way that removes or restricts the court’s statutory jurisdiction in matters of maintenance. The House of Lords emphasised that public policy and statutory powers override private bargains where the two are in conflict.

Facts of Hyman v Hyman Case

In Hyman v Hyman, the appellant husband, Mr Hyman, was married to the respondent wife. He left his wife in order to live with another woman. Following this separation, both parties executed a deed of separation.

Under the terms of the deed, the husband covenanted to pay the wife £2000 as alimony. In addition, he agreed to pay her a weekly sum of £20 for her maintenance during her life. In return, the wife covenanted that she would not petition any court for further alimony or maintenance other than the sums already agreed under the deed.

Subsequently, the marriage was dissolved by divorce. After the divorce, the wife petitioned the court seeking maintenance. At first instance, the court held that the deed of separation did not prevent the wife from claiming maintenance from the court.

The husband appealed against that decision. The matter eventually came before the House of Lords.

Issues

The central issue in Hyman v Hyman was whether the wife remained bound by her covenant not to petition the court for further maintenance, even after the dissolution of the marriage.

The ex-husband argued that the covenant contained in the deed of separation continued to bind the wife. According to his argument, she had agreed not to seek further maintenance beyond the sums provided in the deed, and she should therefore be held to that bargain.

He further contended that public policy required that contracts should be upheld and that covenants freely entered into by the parties should be honoured. In his view, the wife was attempting to escape from an agreement that she had voluntarily accepted.

Thus, the legal question was whether such a covenant was enforceable, or whether it was invalid because it interfered with the statutory powers of the court.

Statutory Context

In Hyman v Hyman, the House of Lords considered the effect of section 190(1) of the Judicature Act 1925. Under that provision, a court had discretion to make an order granting such sums of maintenance as it considered reasonable. It also had discretion to order the payment of alimony as it thought just.

The statutory framework therefore conferred upon the court a discretionary power to award maintenance following divorce. This power was not expressed to be subject to private agreements between the parties.

The key question was whether the covenant in the deed of separation could prevent the court from exercising this statutory discretion.

Hyman v Hyman Judgement

In Hyman v Hyman, their Lordships first observed that there was no provision in the covenant terminating it upon dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, as a matter of construction, the covenant continued to operate even after divorce.

However, this was not the end of the matter.

Lord Hailsham explained that section 190(1) of the Judicature Act 1925 conferred upon the court a discretionary power to award maintenance as it considered reasonable and just. The agreement contained in the deed amounted, in substance, to a covenant not to bring proceedings before the court.

Such a covenant, if enforced, would have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, it would prevent the court from exercising the statutory discretion given to it by Parliament.

Their Lordships held that a private agreement cannot override a statutory power granted by Parliament. A contract which seeks to frustrate an Act of Parliament is contrary to public policy and therefore illegal and invalid.

Accordingly, although the covenant had not terminated upon divorce, it could not be enforced because it attempted to restrict the court’s jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.

Legal Principle Established

The decision in Hyman v Hyman establishes a fundamental principle of UK law: courts will not enforce contracts that frustrate or undermine an Act of Parliament.

In particular, parties cannot contract out of a statutory discretion conferred upon a court. Even where an agreement is freely entered into, it will be unenforceable if its effect is to prevent the court from exercising a power granted by statute.

The case confirms that a covenant not to bring proceedings, where it would oust the jurisdiction of the court in relation to statutory powers, is contrary to public policy.

Public Policy and Ouster of Jurisdiction

A central theme in Hyman v Hyman is the concept of ousting the jurisdiction of the court. The courts have traditionally been reluctant to permit private agreements to exclude or restrict their jurisdiction, particularly where that jurisdiction is conferred by statute.

In this case, the covenant not to petition for maintenance would have prevented the wife from invoking the statutory discretion under the Judicature Act 1925. Enforcing such a covenant would have meant that the court could not perform the function assigned to it by Parliament.

The House of Lords therefore treated the covenant as illegal and invalid, not because separation agreements are inherently objectionable, but because this particular provision conflicted with statutory authority.

Conclusion

Hyman v Hyman remains a leading authority on the relationship between private agreements and statutory jurisdiction. The House of Lords made it clear that although the covenant in the deed of separation continued to operate after divorce, it could not be enforced because it sought to oust the jurisdiction of the court under section 190(1) of the Judicature Act 1925.

The appeal was dismissed, and the wife was not prevented from petitioning for maintenance.

The decision in Hyman v Hyman therefore stands for the enduring principle that courts will not enforce contracts which frustrate Acts of Parliament. It confirms that statutory powers granted to the courts cannot be overridden by private bargains, and that public policy protects the integrity of parliamentary legislation.