Gale v Gale

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a husband's suit for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of his wife's adultery. The wife admitted to the adultery but raised defences of connivance, conduct inducing or contributing to the adultery, and condonation. She also counterclaimed for divorce based on alleged adultery by the husband, which was not established. The trial judge found that the husband had connived at the adultery or, alternatively, had connived at certain acts and contributed to others, leading to the dismissal of his suit. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia allowed the husband's appeal, setting aside these findings and remitting the case to consider unreasonable delay. The husband then appealed to the High Court.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the husband had connived at his wife's adultery, whether his conduct induced or contributed to it, and the implications of his knowledge and acquiescence in the adulterous relationship. The court also considered the application of legal principles regarding connivance and condonation in matrimonial causes, particularly in light of the husband's awareness of his wife's ongoing affair with the co-defendant.

The High Court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the husband had knowingly assented to and acquiesced in the continuance of the adulterous relationship from March 1947 onwards. The court agreed with the Full Court's view that there was ample evidence to support a finding of corrupt intention on the part of the husband, which amounted to connivance at the continuance of the adultery. The court clarified that the decisions in *Douglas v. Douglas* and *Haevecker v. Haevecker* did not preclude a finding of connivance at the continuance of adultery where a husband possesses a corrupt intention to encourage its continuation, distinguishing this from merely seeking proof.

The High Court dismissed the husband's appeal, affirming the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court found that the husband's connivance at his wife's adultery constituted an absolute bar to his reliance on those acts of adultery.