Thompson v Armstrong and Royse Pty Ltd [1950] HCA 46

$1 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

of the marriage (which may be left out of account in view of their H. €

ages), every one of the matters which the House of Lords enumerated in Blunt v. Blunt (1), as relevant to the exercise of discretion was involved in this case: the interest of the party with whom the appellant committed misconduct, with special regard to the prospect of their future marriage; the question whether there was a prospect of reconciliation between husband and wife; the interest of the appellant, and in particular the interest that she should be able to remarry and live respectably ; and the interest of the community, to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken down. I cannot escape the conclusion that his Honour, although he recognized that these considerations were relevant, omitted to give them the weight to which they were entitled.

I need not recite the history of the appellant's matrimonial and extra-matrimonial life; it is sufficiently stated in the preceding judgments. In my opinion, it is impossible in this case to give due attention to all relevant considerations and yet to conclude that it is better to maintain the appellant's marriage to the man who deserted her twenty-three years ago than to set her free to commence a respectable married life. In particular, it seems to me quite clear that the interests of public morality and respect for the institution of marriage will be better served in the circumstances of this case by enabling marriage to replace illicit cohabitation than by allowing disapproval of the appellant's undoubtedly blame- worthy conduct to find expression in the refusal of her release from a marriage which many years ago broke down beyond hope of restoration.