R v O

The Judge in the case of Wicker -v- Wicker , cited above, continued:-

In this case there is the same lack of trust, coupled with the same risk that the husband, once free of all ties of marriage, will have no pressure on him to proceed with the Dubai property sale. The respondent's application to make the decree absolute will, therefore, be refused.

As a matter of principle, it would be most helpful if agreements presented to the Court for ratification were presented to the Court in the form of a consent order, making it clear, by separation into appropriate paragraphs, which parts of it constitute orders under the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law , 1949, as amended, and which parts constitute undertakings on the part of either party. It would be appropriate for the any crucial undertakings, for example, as in this case, a foreign property transaction, to be given in person by the relevant party to the Court, when the consent order is ratified. Once an undertaking is given to the Court, a matter might be enforceable, if it is not specifically covered by Articles 27, 28 29 or 29A of the Law. On the other hand, even if an agreement is "ratified" by the Court, I doubt that such a matter is capable of enforcement, unless a specific undertaking is given personally to the Court. Such an undertaking was not given in this case. It would have strengthened the husband's case if he had done so.

Since the Judgement of L -v- V [2004]JRC033, it has been the duty of the Court to make reasonable enquiries to ensure that every agreement ratified by the Court is fair and reasonable. It must also be the duty of the Court to ensure that it is enforceable.