Bateman v Bateman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1979 |
| Date | 1979 |
| Court | Family Division |
Husband and Wife - Financial provision - Conduct of parties - Effect on orders for ancillary relief - Violent attacks by wife on husband during marriage - Failure to respond to social duties - Wife's share of responsibility for marriage breakdown -
The parties married in 1957. The three children of the marriage were all of full age at the time of the hearing. The husband, an experienced civil engineer, had worked on overseas projects and the family lived mainly abroad until the breakdown of the mariage in 1972.
The marriage had been turbulent. The wife, who had the children and managed the homes, resented the time spent by the husband on his career and maintained that the family suffered as a result of his ambitions. During the many rows the wife was often the aggressor and twice inflicted wounds of gravity on the husband. In April 1972 the husband suffered a chest wound inflicted by the wife with a knife and had to enter hospital. After that attack the parties had lived apart. The wife and children went to live in a house situated in Ulster bought by the husband as a permanent matrimonial home on mortgage with an equity value of £11,500. The total family assets amounted to some £28,500. The husband's relevant earnings were about £9,000 a year. The wife was not gainfully employed.
In November 1977, the husband was granted a decree nisi of divorce in a suit based on five years' separation under section 1 (2) (e) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The decree nisi had not been made absolute as the court was required to consider the wife's financial under section 10 (2) of the Act of 1973F1.
On the wife's application for financial provision and a property adjustment order, the husband maintained that he was discharged from any liability to provide for the wife because of her grave conduct which had been responsible for the breakdown of the marriage: —
Held, (1) that, although the wife's conduct had substantially contributed to the breakdown of the marriage both by her violence and her damaging attitude towards the husband and his career and it was a relevant factor to be taken into account when applying the provisions of section 25 (1) of the Act of 1973, the wife had over the years made a valuable contribution to the family by looking after the home and bringing up the children and, bearing in mind the husband's own shortcomings. she should by no means be deprived of all financial provision but would be granted reduced orders (post, pp. 387F, 388D–E, G); that in all the circumstances the proper orders were that the matrimonial home should be held upon trust for sale but sale postponed until the wife ceased to use the home as her main place of residence, or remarried, or died, whichever was the earlier event, that thereafter the house should be sold and the proceeds distributed as to 25 per cent. to the wife if still alive and 75 per cent. to be distributed equally amongst the surviving children or their issue; that the husband pay within 28 days a lump sum of £3,000 as a contribution towards the urgent repairs required to the matrimonial home; and that the wife should receive as periodical payments (i) £1000 a year less tax to enable her to live modestly without working, but that if she did engage in gainful employment that that should not be a reason for the husband to apply to reduce the order and (ii) £800 a year to cover her liability for the mortgage payments and for house maintenance on the basis that the children would eventually benefit from the proper maintenance of the house and should not be prejudiced by their mother's conduct (post, pp. 388D–F, H–389B).
(2) That the orders enjoined the husband to make reasonable and clear financial provision for the wife within the terms of section 10 (2) of the Act of 1973 and the decree nisi would be made absolute without further delay (post, p. 389C).
No cases are referred to in the judgment. The following cases, supplied by the courtesy of counsel, were cited in argument:
Armstrong v. Armstrong (
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain [
Hector v. Hector [
Jones (M.A.) v. Jones (W.) [
Wachtel v. Wachtel [
SUMMONS
On November 17, 1977, the husband was granted a decree nisi on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down under section 1 (2) (e) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The decree had not been made absolute as the court was required to consider the wife's financial position under section 10 (2) of the Act of 1973. The wife sought orders for periodical payments, a lump sum, property adjustment and maintenance for the youngest child who was receiving full-time education.
The hearing was in chambers. Purchas J. delivered his judgment in chambers on July 28, 1978. The case is reported by permission of Purchas J.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Cynthia Cruickshank for the wife.
The husband in person.
July 28. PURCHAS J. read the following judgment. This is an application by a former wife for orders providing for periodical payments, a lump sum, and property to be adjusted in her favour, and also an order for maintenance in favour of one of the three children of the family. The wife also relies upon section 10 (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The respondent husband, who conducted his case in person with skill, understanding and discretion, relied upon allegations of conduct of some considerable gravity as a ground for avoiding any liability to make financial provision for the wife, or alternatively as a ground for reducing such provision.
The parties were married on March 16, 1957, in Singapore. The wife was prior to the marriage a clerical officer in the Civil Service, but on leaving Ireland gave up this work and has at no time since been gainfully employed. The husband is now 50 years of age and the wife 48. He is a chartered civil engineer, with great experience and skill in the field of irrigation and hydraulics.
Early in the marriage there were three children of the family, a girl and two boys, born within a comparatively short period of time. The girl, D. J., was born on January 26, 1958, and is now training to be a nurse in London. J. P. was born on May 6, 1959, and until July 1977 was at school. He is now employed, but is waiting for interviews for the Navy, or alternatively for training in hotel management. S. M. was born on April 14, 1960, and is still a student. He was about to sit his “A” level examinations when I heard this matter, and hoped if successful to go on to university. S. M. is a boarder during the school terms, but lives with his mother during the holiday. J. P. resided permanently with his mother at the time of the hearing, and D. J. visited her mother occasionally.
The husband has for the time being not been in touch with any of the children. Until about 1967 he served with the Colonial Service, mainly overseas. From 1968 to 1973 he again served overseas. During this time he was engaged upon United Nations projects. He is now employed with consulting engineers of considerable repute. Although he is at present in England, it would appear that he is again likely to go abroad in the not too far distant future. When he does his earnings will increase considerably.
From 1961, when the parties were in Aden, I have no doubt that the marriage came under some considerable stress. Both parties in fact referred to difficulties almost from the outset of the marriage, but it is probable that their recollections have been soured by the unhappy events which occurred subsequently. In any event, I do not think that such early disputes are relevant to this application.
Both parties have strong temperaments. The husband originates from Southern Ireland, the wife from Northern Ireland. In view of the nature of the issues between the parties I shall have to consider some of the allegations and counter-allegations in detail. At the outset I should say that I found the husband generally to be a reliable and restrained witness, and for the most part his recollection was reliable. He avoided the temptation to exaggerate, and was ready to make concessions against his own interests. He gave his evidence with clarity and precision, and his recall as to detail was generally good. He did not, however, disclose the existence of foreign assets, but I accept his explanation for this failure.
The wife was not, in my judgment, nearly so impressive a witness. She found it difficult to concentrate upon the point of a question, or to answer it with any degree of relevance. There were material aspects where her evidence differed from the contents of her affidavits. I was driven to the conclusion that at certain points the latter were neither full nor frank. On two occasions during the marriage I am satisfied that she inflicted wounds of gravity upon the husband. Referring to the earlier occasion, which occurred whilst the parties were in Aden, I reject the suggestion made by the wife that the wound was self-inflicted during a struggle. On the second occasion the wife admitted that there was no real provocation as such for the attack. Put at its highest the wife's case is that she was driven to this attack by exasperation.
The husband also relies on numerous allegations of conduct as set out in his affidavit of April 17, 1978. Mainly these relate to an attitude on the part of the wife which the husband alleges caused him embarrassment, if not prejudice, in the pursuit of his career. These allegations in my judgment, fall into an entirely different category from the two attacks to which I have made reference.
I am satisfied that there is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong
...family, she was not granted the relief she sought as it would not be just that she should have a share in it. (2) In Bateman v Bateman [1979] Fam 25 the wife inflicted wounds of gravity on her husband and damaged his career by her conduct. Divorce was granted on the husband`s petition on fi......
-
S v S (Non-Matrimonial Property: Conduct); S v S (Divorce: Distribution of Assets)
...attacks wife with a razor and inflicts serious injuries: there are financial consequences (wife rendered incapable of working). iii) Bateman v Bateman [1979] 2 WLR 377: wife twice inflicts stab wounds on her husband with a knife. iv) S v S [1982] Fam 183: husband commits incest with childre......
-
S v D
...attacks wife with a razor and inflicts serious injuries: there are financial consequences (wife rendered incapable of working). iii) Bateman v Bateman [1979] 2 WLR 377: wife twice inflicts stab wounds on her husband with a knife. iv) S v S (1982) 12 Fam Law 183: husband commits incest with......
-
B.P. v S.O.
...attacks wife with a razor and inflicts serious injuries: there are financial consequences (wife rendered incapable of working). iii) Bateman v Bateman [1979] 2 WLR 377: wife twice inflicts stab wounds on her husband with a knife. iv) S v S (1982) 12 Fam Law 183: husband commits incest with......
-
Family Law
...in more recent times. 16.49 In any event, the court found it useful to refer to various analogous English cases such as Bateman v Bateman[1979] Fam 25 (the wife seriously wounded the husband twice), Evans v Evans[1989]1 FLR 351 (the wife solicited others to murder the husband), and H vH (fi......