Wright v Wright [1948] HCA 33

Wright v Wright [1948] HCA 33

The standard required for the proof of a criminal offence does not apply to proof of adultery in divorce proceedings; instead, the civil standard applies, but with serious allegations the court must be clearly satisfied. The onus of disproving condonation rests, as a matter of evidence and procedure under South Australian law, on the applicant, but this interpretation was split among the Justices. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed due to the court being equally divided, affirming the Supreme Court decision per s. 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1947.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff (wife): Grace Wright; Respondent; Defendant (husband); Cross Appellant: Allan William Wauchope Wright; Third Party (co Defendant to Counterclaim): Richard O'Hallagan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal (and Cross Appeal) From Divorce Proceedings / High Court of Australia, on Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia (mayo J.)
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. Decision of Supreme Court of South Australia (Mayo J.) affirmed by an equally divided High Court (per Judiciary Act 1903-1947, s. 23(2)(a)).
Legal Topics
Divorce, Adultery, Standard of Proof, Onus of Proof, Condonation
Family Law Divorce Adultery Standard of Proof Onus of Proof Condonation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Wright

Appellant; Plaintiff (wife)

Allan William Wauchope Wright

Respondent; Defendant (husband); Cross Appellant

Richard O'Hallagan

Third Party (co Defendant to Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (and Cross Appeal) From Divorce Proceedings / High Court of Australia, on Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia (mayo J.)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate standard of proof for adultery in matrimonial causes?
  2. 2 Upon whom does the onus of disproving condonation rest in divorce proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1929-1941 (S.A.)?
  3. 3 Was adultery by either party sufficiently established?

Ratio Decidendi

The standard required for the proof of a criminal offence does not apply to proof of adultery in divorce proceedings; instead, the civil standard applies, but with serious allegations the court must be clearly satisfied. The onus of disproving condonation rests, as a matter of evidence and procedure under South Australian law, on the applicant, but this interpretation was split among the Justices. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed due to the court being equally divided, affirming the Supreme Court decision per s. 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1947.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. Decision of Supreme Court of South Australia (Mayo J.) affirmed by an equally divided High Court (per Judiciary Act 1903-1947, s. 23(2)(a)).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.