Cocks v Juncken [1947] HCA 16

Cocks v Juncken [1947] HCA 16

The presumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate is a presumption of fact, not law, and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence even when the husband knew of the wife's pregnancy at the time of marriage and subsequently acknowledged the child. In this case, sufficient evidence established that the respondent, not the husband, was the father, and the maintenance order for the child laid a civil right of over £300, making the appeal competent as of right.

Parties
Appellant; Complainant: Arthur Wellesley Cocks; Respondent; Defendant: Douglas Robert Juncken
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Legitimacy of Children, Presumption of Legitimacy, Admissibility of Evidence, Maintenance Orders, Paternity, Civil Right Appeals, Affiliation Proceedings
Family Law Evidence Civil Procedure Legitimacy of Children Presumption of Legitimacy Admissibility of Evidence Maintenance Orders Paternity +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Wellesley Cocks

Appellant; Complainant

Douglas Robert Juncken

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the presumption of legitimacy for a child conceived before but born after marriage irrebuttable where the husband knew of the pregnancy and acknowledged the child?
  2. 2 Was the original maintenance order appealable as of right under s. 35(1)(a)(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1940 given the value involved?
  3. 3 Was the evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy in this case?

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate is a presumption of fact, not law, and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence even when the husband knew of the wife's pregnancy at the time of marriage and subsequently acknowledged the child. In this case, sufficient evidence established that the respondent, not the husband, was the father, and the maintenance order for the child laid a civil right of over £300, making the appeal competent as of right.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court set aside
  • Appeal of defendant to Supreme Court dismissed with costs