NEW ZEALAND DIVORCE LAW

Taranaki Daily News, 13 April 1934, Page 7

NEW ZEALAND DIVORCE LAW

IMPORTANT POINT INTERPRETED. JUDGMENT OF COURT OF APPEAL. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, April 12. A very interesting point relative to divorce law was decided by the Court of Appeal this morning when giving judgment in th. Keast v. Keast case. By this decision it over-ruled two cases of Lunn v. Lunn and McKenzie v. McKenzie, which have been acted on by the Courts for many years. The case is also of interest in relation to the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Ansley v. Ansley, where the Court of Appeal held that a husband was entitled Jo obtain a divorce on the ground of a separation order being in full force for three years or upwards, if there was a prior separation in fact, which was not due or attributable to the husband’s wrongful conduct. This case, however, approved of both Lunn v. Lunn and McKenzie v. McKenzie, which had decided that a separation order made against a husband was itself conclusive evidence of wrongful conduct on the part of the husband, which in effect prevented his obtaining a divorce if the divorce action were defended. The present decision has overruled Lunn’s case and McKenzie’s case and has decided that a separation order of itself is not such conclusive evidence, but that the Court has power to go behind the separation order and seek the true cause. The Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, remarked that he came to this conclusion .with reluctance, but a decision of both divisions of the English Court of Appeal was applicable and, if such decision had been brought to the notice of the judges in the Lunn v. Lunn and McKenzie v. McKenzie cases, those decision might have been different. The Court, while holding in addition that the petitioner had not established the prior agreement to separate alleged by him, ordered the action back to the Supreme Court to be commenced.