Evidence on which, in an action of divorce for desertion brought by a husband, it was held (in aff. judgment of Second Division) that the wife had Proved S vitia On The Part of The Husband Such As Would Have Entitled Her To A Decree of Separation, and Therefore That The Husband Was Not Entitled To Decree of Divorce.
Opinion by Lord Watson, that section 11 of the Conjugal Rights Act of 1861, which provides ‘that it shall not be necessary, prior to any action for divorce, to institute against the defender any action of adherence,’ was not intended to alter the substance of the older statute law, but merely to simplify procedure, and that ‘reasonable cause’ in the sense of the Act 1573, cap. 55, was simply such cause as would have afforded a good answer to an action for adherence.
Question, whether there might not be circumstances affording a sufficient defence to an action for adherence which yet would not establish the right to a decree of separation.
A husband having appealed unsuccessfully to the House of Lords against an interlocutor of the Court of Session assoilzieing his wife from the conclusions of an action of divorce for desertion which he had brought against her, the wife, although having separate estate, was allowed costs, to be taxed as between agent and client.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor Lord Watson Lord Ashbourne Lord Macnaghten Lord Morris
Citations:
[1895] UKHL 455, 32 SLR 455
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Family, Costs
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.634058