Lett v Lett

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: M. R.
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1906
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 29 June 1906

Lett

and

Lett.

M. R.

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1906.

Jurisdiction — Action brought by defendant in foreign country — Prior action — Release — Agreement not to sue — Injunction.

Held (by Sir Samuel Walker, C., and FitzGibbon, L.J.; Holmes, L.J., dissentiente), affirming the decision of Sir A. M. Porter, M.R., that an injunction should be granted, as the suit in the Argentine Court was against the terms of the consent of the 17th December, 1888, and the deed of the 3rd January, 1889.

The plaintiff, Richard Edward Lett, an Irishman by domicil, went to the Argentine Republic in 1866. He opened a school in 1874, and on the 3rd April, 1874, he married the defendant, Charlotte Ella Lett, at the English Church at Buenos Ayres. There was issue of the marriage one child, who died on the 22nd January, 1877. Mrs. Lett came to England after the death of the child for about six months, and then returned to Buenos Ayres. She lived with her husband until 1880, when she left him, owing to his misconduct, and came to live with her mother in London.

The plaintiff commenced farming in the Argentine Republic, and acquired an interest in a ranch at Pique. He sold part of his property in the ranch in 1886 for £10,500, and returned to England. He lived for a short time with the defendant's mother in London. He took a residence, and farm of 50 acres (Irish measure), at Woodville, in the county of Wexford, under lease for one life, subject to a rent of £100. He furnished the house, and the plaintiff and defendant lived there for some time. The acquisition and furnishing of Woodville cost about £1500.

The plaintiff subsequently went to Buenos Ayres and realized the rest of his property there, and in 1888 he returned to Ireland. On the 24th September, 1888, the defendant presented a petition for divorce a mensa et thoro from the plaintiff, on the ground of adultery, to the Probate and Matrimonial Division in Ireland. The plaintiff filed his answer on the 27th October, 1888; and on the 14th November, 1888, the defendant filed a petition for alimony pendente lite. On the 17th December, 1888, Judge Warren, by his final decree, pronounced in favour of the petitioner and granted her a divorce from her husband. An agreement was then entered into between the plaintiff and defendant to provide for all claims for alimony, and this agreement was embodied in a consent, signed by the plaintiff and defendant, which was made a rule of Court by order dated the 17th December, 1888. It provided that all proceedings in the said cause in reference to alimony, whether pendente lite or permanent, claimed by the defendant, and all claims and proceedings by or on her behalf in respect of the costs of the said cause and proceedings for alimony therein, should be settled on the terms that the plaintiff should pay to her the sum of £500, and should execute an assignment to the defendant of all his estate and interest in the house and lands of Woodville, in the county of Wexford, together with the household furniture and goods, stock, cattle, and chattels in or about the said house and grounds, and that the said defendant, in consideration thereof, should execute and sign a deed releasing the plaintiff from all claims, present or future, by the defendant, against him, in respect of the relief sought by her in the said cause or the costs thereof incurred by her, whether between party and party, or solicitor and client, or in respect of alimony, whether pendente lite or permanent, and in respect of any debts or liabilities incurred, or to be incurred, by the defendant, and indemnifying the plaintiff against the same.

In pursuance of this agreement and consent, an indenture was executed on the 3rd January, 1889, between the plaintiff of the one part and the defendant of the other part, by which, after reciting the proceedings in the divorce cause, the petition for alimony, and the order of the 17th December, 1888, it was witnessed that the defendant released and for ever discharged the plaintiff, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and his estate, “from all claims present and future by her against him in respect of the relief sought by her in the said cause in the High Court of Justice in Ireland or the costs thereof incurred by the said Charlotte Ella Lett, whether as party and party, or as solicitor and client, notwithstanding any order of the said Court made in reference thereto, or in respect of alimony, whether pendente lite or permanent, and in respect of any debts or liabilities incurred, or to be incurred, by the said Charlotte Ella Lett, and from all claims whatsoever, present or future, by or on account of the said Charlotte Ella Lett, against the said Richard E. Lett, or his estate or property, real or personal, movable or immovable, now in possession, or hereafter to be acquired by him, and from all rights and interests, claims and demands, which the said Charlotte Ella Lett has or may have in, to, or upon the same or any part thereof.”

The said indenture also witnessed that the said Charlotte Ella Lett, for herself, her heirs, executors, and administrators, covenanted with the said Richard E. Lett, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, “that she, the said Charlotte Ella Lett, will at all times hereafter effectually keep indemnified the said Richard E. Lett, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and his and their estate and effects, against all acts, proceedings, claims, demands, damages, expenses, and costs whatsoever, in respect of the debts heretofore and hereafter incurred by the said Charlotte Ella Lett, or in respect of the costs of the said cause in the said Division of the said Court, or in respect of any matter or thing hereinafter expressed to be hereby released by the said Charlotte Ella Lett.”

On the 3rd January, 1889, the plaintiff executed an assignment to the defendant of the dwelling house and lands of Woodville for the residue unexpired of the lease for which the said lands were held. The defendant went into possession of the said lands and premises, and had since remained in occupation. At the date of the assignment the lands were held under a lease for one life at a rent of £100 a year. The defendant subsequently purchased the said lands under the Land Purchase Act.

Shortly after this settlement had been arrived at, the plaintiff went out to Argentina, where he worked with his brother on a ranch, and after the death of his brother, in 1893, he bought his share in the ranch. The plaintiff acquired considerable wealth.

In 1895 the defendant went out to Buenos Ayres, and threatened to institute proceedings there for the purpose of obtaining a larger allowance from the plaintiff. In consequence of this an agreement was come to, whereby the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendant £100 a year, in addition to the property given to her by the settlement in 1888, and the defendant agreed to forego the legal proceedings. A deed was prepared and signed to carry out this agreement, and a copy of it was produced at the trial by the plaintiff, who stated that the original was filed in the Court at Buenos Ayres with the Judge's decree ratifying it. The defendant had received the annuity of £100 since.

On the 26th of August, 1903, the defendant, Charlotte Ella Lett, instituted proceedings in the Court of the Argentine Republic against the plaintiff, Richard Edward Lett, and presented a petition to the Judge of first instance in civil matters for divorce and division of property and alimony against the plaintiff, Richard Edward Lett, claiming that an embargo should be placed upon all the plaintiff's property in the Argentine Republic, and that a sum of 2,000 dollars should be paid monthly for the maintenance and law expenses of the defendant, and that a sum of money should be paid by the plaintiff to meet the necessities of the defendant. These proceedings were grounded upon alleged adultery of the plaintiff with the same person as was mentioned in the petition in the proceedings for divorce a mensa et thoro, upon which the final decree was pronounced by the Divorce Court in Ireland on the 17th December, 1888; but—as the plaintiff alleged—no mention was made by the said Charlotte E. Lett in the Argentine petition of the decree or proceedings in Ireland.

Richard E. Lett, having returned to Ireland in 1906, brought an action against Charlotte E. Lett, in which he asked (1) for a declaration that the final decree of the Probate and Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, pronounced on the 17th December, 1888, was a definite and binding sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro between the plaintiff and defendant. He also prayed (2) for an injunction to restrain her from instituting or continuing proceedings for divorce or separation of goods, or for alimony, in the Court of the Argentine Republic or elsewhere against the plaintiff.

The defendant by her defence pleaded that, on the construction of the agreement and indenture dated the 3rd January, 1889, the defendant did not release any claims which she might have against property of the plaintiff situate in the Argentine Republic, and that the said consent and release were confined merely to the relief sought for in the Divorce Court proceedings, including a right of the defendant to such alimony as would be awarded to her by the Divorce Court in Ireland, and in no way affected any claim which the defendant might have against the property of the plaintiff under the law of the Argentine Republic.

The defendant further pleaded that it was not the intention of the plaintiff and defendant at the time the agreement and indenture of the 3rd January, 1889, were signed, that these documents should release the claims which the defendant might have against the plaintiff's property in the Argentine Republic, and...