Ward v Byham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS,LORD JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0116-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 16 January 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0116-2
Lord Justice Denning
Lord Justice Morris and
Lord Justice Parker
In The Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal
MR. G. D. LAKE, instructed by Mr. Anthony T. Clarke (Lincoln), appeared for the Appellant (Defendant).
MR. H. A. SKINNER, instructed by Messrs. Andrew Race, Hill & Mason (Lincoln), appeared for the Respondent (plaintiff).
We need not trouble you, for. Skinner.
This is a claim for the sum of £1 a week in respect of the maintenance of a bastard child. The father and mother lived together unmarried for four or five years, from 1949 until May, 1954, and a little girl was born of that union on 28th October, 1950. Whilst the father and mother were living together, the father went out to work and maintained the household. But in May, 1954, the father turned the motherout. He put the child into the care of a neighbour and paid the neighbour £1 a week. The mother meanwhile found work as a housekeeper to a man who was ready to lot the child come too. The mother wanted the child with her, and she wrote a letter to the father asking for Carol, the child, and £1 a week for her maintenance, which was the sum which the father had been paying the neighbour. We have not got a copy of the letter which the mother wrote, but we have the father's reply, which is the basis of this action. It is dated 27th July, 1954, and says: "Mildred, I am prepared to let you have Carol and pay you up to £1 per week allowance for her providing you can prove that she will be well looked after and happy and also that she is allowed to decide for herself whether or not she wishes to come and live with you. She is well and happy and looking much stronger than ever before. If you decide what to do let me know as soon as possible". On receiving that letter the mother went to see the father, and it was agreed that she could have the child. She took the child with her, and the child has lived with the mother ever since.
In February, 1955, some seven months later, the mother married the man to whom she had been acting as housekeeper; and a few weeks later the father himself married. The father kept up the payments of £1 a week until the mother married, but after that he stopped.
I look upon the father's letter as dealing with two things. One is the handing over of Carol to the mother. The father agrees to let the mother have the child provided that the child herself wishes to come and provided also that the mother satisfies the father that she will be well looked after and happy. The other thing is the future maintenance of the child. The father promises to pay the mother up to £1 per week so long as the mother looks after the child.
The mother now brings this action, claiming that the father should pay her £1 per week, even though she herself hasmarried. The only point taken before us in answer to the claim is that it is said that there was no consideration for the promise by the father to pay £1 a week: because the mother, when she looked after the child, was only doing that which she was legally bound to do, and that is no consideration in law. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on a statement thrown out by Baron Parke in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alval Ltd v Attorney General of Jamaica
...consistently found that consideration existed from promising to do what was already seemingly obligatory. So for instance in the case of Ward v Byham (1956) 2 All E R 318, a mother was held by her promise to have exceeded the duty to maintain her child cast upon her by statute; in promising......
-
MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (Claimant/ Respondent) v Rock Advertising Ltd (Defendant/ Appellant)
...one of the benefits to the building contractor. 79 There are other illustrations of this form of consideration in the case law, including Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496. Reference may also be made to the observations of the Privy Council in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 at 631 to 632. ......
-
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
...then was, sought to escape from the confines of the rule, but was not accompanied in his attempt by the other members of the court. 37In Ward v. Byham [1956] 1 W.L.R. 496 the plaintiff and the defendant lived together unmarried for five years, during which time the plaintiff bore their chi......
-
Malilang and Others v MV Houda Pearl
...supra at 1177). In submitting the contrary, appellants' counsel referred to certain dicta by Lord DENNING in the cases of Ward v Byham [1956] 2 All ER 318 (CA) at 319 and Williams v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 305 (CA) at 307; but these cases were concerned with F non-contractual legal duties ......
-
Consideration and Form
...37. 29 (1892), 18 VLR 114 (Vict SC). See also Main v Main , [1955] 2 DLR 588 (BCSC), aff’d (1956), 2 DLR (2d) 341 (BCCA); Ward v Byham , [1956] 1 WLR 496 (CA). 30 Dunton v Dunton , ibid at 118. 31 Dickinson v Dodds (1876), 2 Ch D 463 (CA); Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880), 5 QBD 346;......
-
FRESH CONSIDERATION RULE: INSIGHTS FROM ITS RESURRECTION IN QUACH V MITRUX SERVICES LTD.
...Prior Obligations at Common Law (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1998) at 76-80. (14) See e.g. Lord Denning's judgments in Wardv Byham, [1956] 1 WLR496,2A11ER318 (stating that "a promise to perform an existing duty [derived from public law], or the performance of it, should be regarded as ......
-
Of what practical benefit is practical benefit to consideration?
...economic duress part see: M.H. Ogilvie, "Economic Duress: An Elegant and Practical Solution" [2011] JBL forthcoming. (15) Ward v Byham [1956] 2 All ER 318 (CA); Williams v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 305 (CA); Pao On v Lau Y/u [1979] 3 All ER 65 (16) Supra note 7 at 521-522. (17) Ibid at 524. ......
-
CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS, CONSIDERATION AND MORAL HAZARD
...where there may well have been no intention to create legal relations. 31 In Hicks v Gregory(1849) 8 CB 378; 137 ER 556, Ward v Byham[1956] 2 All ER 318 and Dunton v Dunton(1892) 18 VLR 114, it was debatable whether there was any economic value in the promises made by the mothers in the fir......