Divorce Flashcards
McLennan v McLennan 1958
The physical requirements of adultary
Two people must be present to count as intercourse
Artificial insemination in this case did not count
Dennis v Dennis
Physical requirements for adultary
No penetration no intercourse
Bennet Clark v Bennet Clark 1909
Proof of Adultery
Woman brought adultary divorce on basis that husband was having affair for 2 years- he after met in hotels with another woman but they had separate rooms- nothing more than friendship could be established
Currie v Currie 1950
Contrast
Clark v Clark 1939
Husband claimed adultary on basis that the last time they had sexual was 11 months prior to baby being born so adultary obv committed
No evidence that the wife was having an affair even though their baby was early
Passmore v Passmore 1972
Father denied that he was the father of 2 children
Defender argued that the times that she lived with the pursuer were consistent with the birth of her children
Held: the pursuer would have to have been able to prove that he did not have sec with the defender but he couldn’t
Blood tests showed they were his children
Hunter v Hunter 1853
Case law on Lenocium
Lenocium- encouragement
Mr H married a prostitute and would remind her of her formal life etc, he went away and she returned back to prostitution
The defence did not apply
Gallagher v Gallagher
Lenocium
Husband sent wife a letter saying that he did not love her anymore and she went off and fell in love with someone else
He raised grounds for divorce and she said she was pushed into adultary
Accepted as a casual link
Thomson v Thomson
Leconium
H&W were in difficult relationship and H said W was acting suspiciously so spies on her, she said she was going to see friends and so he gave her money however she was going to see another man
She claimed that the money was a form of encouragement but leconium did not apply
Fullerton v Fullerton
Behaviour v Condition
Mrs f tried to divorce mr f on the basis that his skitzofrenia meant he had lost all unrest in the family
However courts said that it needed to be high unusual behaviour
No divorce granted
Grant v grant
Behaviour v condition
Relationship broke down because he disregarded person hygiene and urinated all over the house etc- this was an underlying medical condition and the high bar was met allowing the divorce to go ahead
Thurlow v thurlow
Passive behaviour
The husband suffered from epilepsy and she became aggressive etc and damaged the house
Her passive behaviour was capable for grounds of divorce
O’Neill v O’Neill
Behaviour
H became a DIY enthusiast and although not aimed at family it effected them so much that a divorce was granted on the grounds of behaviour
Nox v nox
Behaviour
H tried to get a divorce on the basis of nagging however the courts realised that he just wanted to pursue a relationship with someone else
