Lang v Lang [1954] UKPCHCA 4

Lang v Lang [1954] UKPCHCA 4

Where a husband, persisting in degrading and violent conduct after warnings that such conduct will force the wife to leave, must be taken to know that continued conduct would probably result in her departure, constructive desertion is established regardless of any contrary wish or hope he may entertain. The High Court's decision affirming this was correct and unassailable on the facts found.

Parties
Appellant: Eric Lang; Respondent: Jean Wauchope Lang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 1954
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Australia to the Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Causes, Dissolution of Marriage, Desertion, Constructive Desertion
Family Law Matrimonial Causes Dissolution of Marriage Desertion Constructive 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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Lang

Appellant

Jean Wauchope Lang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Australia to the Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the husband's conduct amounted to constructive desertion justifying dissolution of marriage under the Marriage Act 1928 (Vic)
  2. 2 Whether evidence of husband's intention or desire is relevant to constructive desertion

Ratio Decidendi

Where a husband, persisting in degrading and violent conduct after warnings that such conduct will force the wife to leave, must be taken to know that continued conduct would probably result in her departure, constructive desertion is established regardless of any contrary wish or hope he may entertain. The High Court's decision affirming this was correct and unassailable on the facts found.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant must pay the respondent's costs as between solicitor and client of the appeal to the Privy Council.