Agreements to Settle

Xydhias and Its Limits: HA v EN and THR v WAT

Xydhias and Its Limits: HA v EN and THR v WAT

[2026] 3 FRJ 198. This article aims to highlight some of the inherent issues presented by the concept of Xydhias agreements, namely the residual discretion that is left to the court to approve or alter those agreements, and the practical problems that result from this.

X v F [2025] EWFC 538 (B)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/538

HA v EN [2025] EWHC 2436 (Fam)

The Hon. Richard Todd KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge). Court varies Xydhias agreement, imposing significant contingent reduction in maintenance following change in circumstances.

HA v EN [2025] EWHC 2436 (Fam)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/2436.html

H v W (Xydhias Agreements) [2025] EWFC 163 (B)

District Judge Field. W's application that H should show cause as to why a final order in their financial remedy proceedings should not be made to reflect a concluded agreement alleged to have been made in correspondence, subject to matters of implementation and court approval.

THR v WAT [2025] EWHC 1125 (Fam)

Judgment date: 17 March 2025 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/1125 HHJ Hess (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) navigated his way through an Xydhias puzzle. Parties informed the judge they were Xydhias-bound but then argued over (i) a £2m asset, (ii) costs, (iii)