Deery v Deery [1954] HCA 4

Deery v Deery [1954] HCA 4

Constructive desertion was not established because the wife's conduct, though emotionally unstable and difficult, lacked the necessary intention to drive the husband away, and her actions did not amount to an intentional persistence in conduct calculated to bring about a rupture of the matrimonial relationship.

Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Arthur Deery (formerly Arthur Deutsch); Respondent/appellant: Perla Pola Deery (formerly Perla Pola Deutsch)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 1954
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree nisi discharged; petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Causes, Dissolution of Marriage, Constructive Desertion, Intention in Desertion

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Deery (formerly Arthur Deutsch)

Petitioner/respondent

Perla Pola Deery (formerly Perla Pola Deutsch)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

  1. 1 Whether the wife's conduct amounted to constructive desertion under Marriage Act 1928 (Vict.) s. 75(a)
  2. 2 Whether intention to bring about rupture or intention to persist in conduct calculated to bring about rupture was established

Ratio Decidendi

Constructive desertion was not established because the wife's conduct, though emotionally unstable and difficult, lacked the necessary intention to drive the husband away, and her actions did not amount to an intentional persistence in conduct calculated to bring about a rupture of the matrimonial relationship.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree nisi discharged; petition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Decree nisi discharged.
  • Suit dismissed with costs.