White v White
Case
•
[1908] HCA 80
•2 December 1908
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
White v White [1908] HCA 80
[1908] HCA 80
2 December 1908
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion. The appellant, Evelyn Veronica White, sought a divorce from her husband, the respondent, who had disappeared and had not been heard from since the parties' separation. The initial separation occurred when the appellant left the matrimonial home due to the respondent's excessive drinking, cruelty, and violent threats, including an assault and a command to leave.
The legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the respondent had deserted the appellant. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent's conduct, both at the commencement of the separation and subsequently, constituted desertion for the purposes of divorce. The primary judge had dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence that the respondent intended to permanently end cohabitation at the time of the separation.
The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that while the respondent may not have intended to permanently withdraw from cohabitation at the precise moment the appellant left, his subsequent actions provided sufficient evidence of desertion. The court applied the principle that a separation initiated by a wife due to the husband's justifying conduct is effectively the husband's act. Furthermore, the court held that an intention to desert, even if not present at the commencement of a separation, could be formed subsequently and inferred from conduct. The respondent's disappearance the day after the separation, his subsequent complete lack of communication, and his absconding were held to be strong indicators of an intention to permanently end cohabitation, thus constituting desertion.
Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court and granted a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, returnable in six months.
The legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the respondent had deserted the appellant. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent's conduct, both at the commencement of the separation and subsequently, constituted desertion for the purposes of divorce. The primary judge had dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence that the respondent intended to permanently end cohabitation at the time of the separation.
The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that while the respondent may not have intended to permanently withdraw from cohabitation at the precise moment the appellant left, his subsequent actions provided sufficient evidence of desertion. The court applied the principle that a separation initiated by a wife due to the husband's justifying conduct is effectively the husband's act. Furthermore, the court held that an intention to desert, even if not present at the commencement of a separation, could be formed subsequently and inferred from conduct. The respondent's disappearance the day after the separation, his subsequent complete lack of communication, and his absconding were held to be strong indicators of an intention to permanently end cohabitation, thus constituting desertion.
Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court and granted a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, returnable in six months.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Intention
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
White v White [1908] HCA 80
Most Recent Citation
Phillip Morris Inc & Phillip Morris Ltd v Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 101 ((1980) 44 FLR 88)
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0