Johnson v Johnson [1923] HCA 13

Johnson v Johnson [1923] HCA 13

The evidence showed that the respondent, although mentally disordered, understood the nature and consequences of her actions and was competent to bear responsibility under sec. 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1899 (N.S.W.) for adultery. A decree nisi for dissolution was warranted. The Court found that it was unnecessary to decide more broadly whether insanity is a defence to adultery where the respondent is capable of such understanding.

Parties
Appellant / Petitioner: Robert Johnson; Respondent / Wife: Elizabeth Esther Johnson; Co Respondent: James Dodd; Guardian Ad Litem of the Respondent: William Arthur Parker, Master in Lunacy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1923
Procedural Posture
Divorce (matrimonial Cause) / Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed, decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Adultery, Insanity as a Defence in Matrimonial Causes, Costs (divorce Proceedings)
Family Law Divorce Adultery Insanity as a Defence in Matrimonial Causes Costs (divorce Proceedings)

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Johnson

Appellant / Petitioner

Elizabeth Esther Johnson

Respondent / Wife

James Dodd

Co Respondent

William Arthur Parker, Master in Lunacy

Guardian Ad Litem of the Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce (matrimonial Cause) / Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insanity is a defence to a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1899 (N.S.W.)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent (wife), at the time of the alleged adultery, was legally responsible, given her mental condition
  3. 3 On whom the burden of proof lies regarding capacity in the context of insanity and adultery

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence showed that the respondent, although mentally disordered, understood the nature and consequences of her actions and was competent to bear responsibility under sec. 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1899 (N.S.W.) for adultery. A decree nisi for dissolution was warranted. The Court found that it was unnecessary to decide more broadly whether insanity is a defence to adultery where the respondent is capable of such understanding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted.

Orders

  • Decree nisi for dissolution of marriage to be made, not absolute until six months expire.
  • Petitioner (husband) to pay the respondent’s (wife’s, including guardian ad litem’s) costs in both Supreme Court and High Court.