Clauses barring court access are void: MCA 1973 s. 34
Under MCA 1973 s. 34, clauses in written marital maintenance agreements that attempt to restrict access to court are void, while other terms remain binding.
If a maintenance agreement includes a provision purporting to restrict any right to apply to a court for an order containing financial arrangements, then— that provision shall be void; but any other financial arrangements contained in the agreement shall not thereby be rendered void or unenforceable and shall, unless they are void or unenforceable for any other reason (and subject to sections 35 and 36 below), be binding on the parties to the agreement. In this section and in section 35 below— “ maintenance agreement ” means any agreement in writing made, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, between the parties to a marriage, being— an agreement containing financial arrangements, whether made during the continuance or after the dissolution or annulment of the marriage; or a separation agreement which contains no financial arrangements in a case where no other agreement in writing between the same parties contains such arrangements; “ financial arrangements ” means provisions governing the rights and liabilities towards one another when living separately of the parties to a marriage (including a marriage which has been dissolved or annulled) in respect of the making or securing of payments or the disposition or use of any property, including such rights and liabilities with respect to the maintenance or education of any child, whether or not a child of the family.
Text in force at .
Source: legislation.gov.uk — The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk), reproduced under licence Open Government Licence v3.0.
What it actually says
Section 34 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 addresses written maintenance agreements between spouses or former spouses. It provides that any provision in such an agreement attempting to prevent or restrict a party from applying to a court for financial arrangements is void.
The invalidity of a clause barring court applications does not render the entire agreement void. Other financial arrangements within the agreement remain valid, enforceable, and binding on both parties, provided they are not void or unenforceable for any other reason, and subject to sections 35 and 36.
A maintenance agreement covers written contracts made during marriage, separation, or after dissolution that govern financial obligations, property disposition or use, and child maintenance rights.
When it applies
- A written separation agreement contains a clause stating neither spouse may apply to court for financial provision orders.
- A former spouse applies to court for child support despite having signed a contract agreeing not to seek court relief.
- A spouse enforces agreed maintenance payments under a written agreement while ignoring a clause purporting to bar court jurisdiction.
What this section does not say
- Court applications to alter or vary valid financial arrangements in an agreement, which are governed by section 35.
- Altering a maintenance agreement after the death of one of the parties, which falls under section 36.
- Oral or unwritten financial arrangements between spouses.
That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
Or open a session directly and invite the other party.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of MCA 1973 s. 34 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.