Davies v Davies [1919] HCA 17

Davies v Davies [1919] HCA 17

The rights conferred by the relevant sections of the Marriage Act 1915 (Vict.) are for the benefit of the public and cannot be renounced; thus, an agreement relieving a husband of his support obligation does not prevent a Court of Petty Sessions from making an order for maintenance of wife or child. The prior decision to quash the orders was incorrect; the agreement is not a jurisdictional bar.

Parties
Appellant: Emma Amelia Davies; Appellant: Margaret Olive Davies; Respondent: David Davies
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 1919
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Separation Agreements, Public Policy, Statutory Obligations, Parent and Child
Family Law Maintenance Separation Agreements Public Policy Statutory Obligations Parent and Child

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emma Amelia Davies

Appellant

Margaret Olive Davies

Appellant

David Davies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a separation agreement between husband and wife, whereby the wife agrees to renounce the right to maintenance, precludes a Court of Petty Sessions from making an order for maintenance under the Marriage Act 1915 (Vict.)
  2. 2 Whether such agreement can prevent a maintenance order for a child sought by the wife as applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court could remit the case for rehearing to the Court of General Sessions

Ratio Decidendi

The rights conferred by the relevant sections of the Marriage Act 1915 (Vict.) are for the benefit of the public and cannot be renounced; thus, an agreement relieving a husband of his support obligation does not prevent a Court of Petty Sessions from making an order for maintenance of wife or child. The prior decision to quash the orders was incorrect; the agreement is not a jurisdictional bar.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Court of General Sessions for rehearing and determination in accordance with the opinion of the High Court.
  • Respondent to pay costs in the Supreme Court and the High Court.