Cook v Cook [1923] HCA 57

Cook v Cook [1923] HCA 57

Adultery committed by a wife after the making of a maintenance order does not annul the order or bar its enforcement under s 91. The justice’s duty under s 91 is to decide if the order is in force and disobeyed; defences such as post-order adultery must be raised in variation or appellate proceedings, not at enforcement. Limitation provisions do not bar proceeding for continuing non-compliance within the period preceding the application.

Parties
Appellant, Informant: Ellen Cook; Respondent, Defendant: Walter Henry Cook
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 1923
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia on Special Leave Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Maintenance Order Enforcement, Effect of Post Order Adultery, Jurisdiction Under Marriage Act 1915 (vic), Application of Limitation Periods to Maintenance Enforcement
Family Law Criminal Law Maintenance Order Enforcement Effect of Post Order Adultery Jurisdiction Under Marriage Act 1915 (vic) Application of Limitation Periods to Maintenance Enforcement

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 3 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellen Cook

Appellant, Informant

Walter Henry Cook

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia on Special Leave Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsequent adultery of a wife annuls an existing maintenance order for enforcement proceedings under Marriage Act 1915 (Vic) s 91.
  2. 2 Whether a justice under s 91 has discretion to refuse enforcement based on post-order conduct.
  3. 3 Whether disobedience of a maintenance order is a continuing offence for limitation purposes under Justices Act 1915 (Vic) s 210.

Ratio Decidendi

Adultery committed by a wife after the making of a maintenance order does not annul the order or bar its enforcement under s 91. The justice’s duty under s 91 is to decide if the order is in force and disobeyed; defences such as post-order adultery must be raised in variation or appellate proceedings, not at enforcement. Limitation provisions do not bar proceeding for continuing non-compliance within the period preceding the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Court of Petty Sessions and of Mann J. discharged.
  • Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions at Macarthur to be dealt with consistently with this judgment.