BAINBRIDGE & BAINBRIDGE

In the matter of *Bainbridge & Bainbridge*, heard before Tree J, the husband sought to be released from undertakings he had previously provided to the Court, while the wife sought to have those undertakings suspended. The dispute arose due to subsequent events that rendered the performance of the undertakings impossible, including the husband no longer having control of a company, the company entering liquidation, the repossession of a car, and both parties facing bankruptcy.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the husband should be released from his undertakings, and on what grounds such a release could be granted, particularly where the obligations had become impossible to perform. Additionally, the Court was required to determine the wife's application for the husband to pay the costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Tree J reasoned that the undertakings were no longer capable of performance due to circumstances beyond the husband's control, and that requiring him to continue to be bound by them would cause injustice. The Court applied principles relating to the discharge of undertakings where subsequent events make performance impossible or inequitable. Regarding costs, the Court ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs of his application.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the husband be released from the undertaking provided on 7 March 2016, with effect from 31 July 2016. The respondent wife was ordered to pay the applicant husband’s costs of his application filed on 16 September 2016, incurred from 17 September 2016, in any event.