29 Apr 2020
The renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the husband failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the Family Court’s factual finding of two-year separation was well supported and not shown to be erroneous, established precedent permits dissolution once separation is proved without further probing of adultery, and the costs order fell within the judge’s wide discretion.
23 Oct 2019
Photographic evidence and the respondent's admission that he was the man in the photographs showing public intimate conduct established conduct beyond ordinary friendship; from the wife's perspective and applying the Livingstone‑Stallard test the respondent's conduct was unreasonable and made it impossible to expect the wife to live with him; other allegations (financial arrangements, parenting disputes) were not proved to the requisite standard to found the petition; accordingly the marriage was irretrievably broken and a decree nisi was granted.
25 Sept 2019
Leave to appeal refused because the Husband’s proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge’s factual finding of two-year separation was supported by contemporaneous documents and witness evidence and was not plainly wrong; there was no justification to reopen or inquire into adultery where decree was granted on separation and adultery would not affect ancillary relief; the costs order was within the court’s discretion as the Wife succeeded and amendments were consensual with costs allocated to the Husband.
22 May 2019
The wife proved continuous separation from 9 September 2015 such that the parties had lived apart for more than two years before the petition; therefore a decree nisi of divorce is granted on the basis of two-year separation and no further inquiry into the husband's adultery allegation is warranted as it serves no practical purpose to the divorce decree.
22 May 2019
Court found on balance of contemporaneous communications, admissions and conduct that the parties had lived apart continuously from 9 September 2015 for more than two years; therefore decree nisi granted on ground of two-year separation under section 11A(2)(d) MCO; court declined to investigate or grant relief on husband's adultery petition because any inquiry was unnecessary to the divorce and would have no practical effect on ancillary proceedings.
22 May 2019
The wife proved continuous living apart since 9 September 2015 by contemporaneous messages, admissions and conduct establishing an intention not to return; absence of a formal agreement is irrelevant to section 11A(2)(d); therefore decree nisi granted on two-year separation and further inquiry into adultery was unnecessary and refused as it had no practical effect on the divorce or ancillary relief.
31 Jul 2009
On the balance of probabilities the husband engaged in conduct (writing sexually explicit e-mails and likely extra-marital relations) that, objectively and in the context of the parties' circumstances, meant the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him; the wife's allegations did not establish reciprocal conduct rendering the husband unable to live with her; decree nisi granted for petitioner on grounds of husband's unreasonable behaviour.
26 Oct 1993
The Court held that because the husband disputed the wife's allegation of intolerability and the court has a statutory duty to inquire into disputed facts on the balance of probabilities, it was wrong to shut the husband out from cross-examination or adducing evidence; consequently the judge correctly dismissed the wife's application to strike out and to proceed undefended.
2 Dec 1983
The court accepted the petitioner’s credible testimony and corroborating witness and expert evidence that the ceremony described satisfied Chinese law in 1946, rejected the first respondent’s contrary account, found a valid marriage occurred on 18 July 1946, found adultery and irretrievable breakdown, and therefore granted a decree nisi of dissolution.
28 Jun 1983
Even where the petitioner’s adultery precipitated the respondent’s conduct, the petitioner may obtain a divorce if, applying the O'Neill test, a right‑thinking person would conclude the respondent’s behaviour was such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him; the violent, prolonged and terrifying conduct of 13/14 May 1982 met that threshold, so the appeal must be allowed and the marriage dissolved.