Legal Research
Cases
Jacombe v Jacombe

Jacombe v Jacombe

Case [1961] HCA 25 12 May 1961

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., Fullagar and Menzies JJ.

JACOMBE v. JACOMBE

(1961) 105 CLR 355

12 May 1961

Evidence

Evidence—Marriage—Capacity—Proof of dissolution of prior marriage—Copy order of foreign court—Seal of court—Authentication of decree by stamp of branch of court—Proof of marriage—Performance of ceremony—Cohabitation—Evidence Act, 1898-1954 (N.S.W.), s. 21.

Decision

May 12.
The COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales affirming a decree of Nield J. granting the petitioning wife, who is the respondent to this appeal, a decree for the dissolution of her marriage with the appellant on the ground of his adultery. This appeal is only concerned with the question whether the appellant and the respondent were in law married, for the appellant's case is that the decree for the dissolution of marriage was wrongly made because there was no marriage to dissolve. The appellant's name was originally Jacobs and the parties went through a ceremony of marriage in Christ Church, Jerusalem, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England on 7th July 1941. The formal validity of this Jerusalem ceremony is not now in dispute. What is in dispute is the capacity of the respondent to have contracted that marriage, the appellant contending that she was at that time the wife of Stanislavs Urbanovics. In the marriage certificate that recorded the ceremony in Jerusalem, the respondent is described as "Austra Melanie Vapa, Spinster", but she, as is now admitted, was not a spinster; in a petition dated 20th July 1956 instituting proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for judicial separation from the respondent, she described herself at the time of the marriage now in dispute (although she alleged that it took place in Cyprus in 1938) as "Austra Melanie Urbanovich, Widow", but no attempt was made in the proceedings with which we are concerned to prove her widowhood; in the petition instituting these proceedings, which is dated 17th September 1958, the respondent contented herself with this description of her former status: "Formerly Austra Melanie Jacobs nee Vapa and now known as Austra Melanie Jacombe", but pursuant to leave granted on 20th February 1959 her petition was amended to describe herself as being at the date of the disputed marriage "then Austra Melanie Urbanovich Divorcee". What has been said shows that in a variety of ways the respondent has cast a good deal of doubt upon her capacity to have married the appellant and, in explanation of how she came to be described as a spinster in her marriage certificate, she did not hesitate to blame those connected with the Church in Jerusalem for what she called a mistake. It is not necessary to attempt to find out what lay beneath what seems clearly enough to have been a deception practised upon somebody at the time of the Jerusalem ceremony; what we are now concerned with is whether there was in the circumstances…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jacombe v Jacombe

Details

AGLC: Jacombe v Jacombe [1961] HCA 25
Case: [1961] HCA 25
Decision Date: 12 May 1961

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between the appellant, Jacombe, and the respondent, also named Jacombe. The core of the disagreement revolved around the interpretation and enforceability of a deed of settlement and a subsequent oral agreement, which the appellant argued had varied the terms of the deed.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the deed of settlement was valid and binding, and if so, whether the parties had subsequently varied its terms through an oral agreement. The Court was required to determine the legal effect of the oral agreement in light of the deed and consider whether it constituted a valid variation or a new agreement altogether.

The Court found that the deed of settlement was a valid and binding agreement. It then considered the alleged oral agreement, applying principles of contract law regarding variation. The Court held that the oral agreement did not have the effect of varying the deed of settlement. Instead, it was considered to be an agreement to agree, which lacked the necessary certainty to be legally enforceable as a variation of the deed. The Court reasoned that the oral agreement did not create new rights or obligations that could override the clear terms of the deed.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were affirmed.

Orders