HARRIS V. HARRIS AND ANOTHER

HARRIS V. HARRIS AND ANOTHER

There was no evidence of unreasonable delay in the presentation of the petition, and the wife acted properly in waiting for sufficient evidence of adultery before initiating divorce proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and a decree nisi pronounced.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Petitioner (Wife); Respondent: Respondent (Husband); Intervening Respondent: Ruby Joyce Francis (Intervening Respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1945
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Adultery, Delay in Commencement of Proceedings
Family Law Divorce Adultery Delay in Commencement of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Petitioner (Wife)

Applicant

Respondent (Husband)

Respondent

Ruby Joyce Francis (Intervening Respondent)

Intervening Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition for divorce should be dismissed due to undue delay by the petitioner wife
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to include additional allegations of adultery was properly allowed

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of unreasonable delay in the presentation of the petition, and the wife acted properly in waiting for sufficient evidence of adultery before initiating divorce proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and a decree nisi pronounced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • A decree nisi for dissolution of marriage pronounced as of this date
  • The case, including the question of custody of the child, remitted to the Supreme Court of Western Australia