Benson v Benson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1941 |
| Year | 1941 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Divorce - Incurable unsoundness of mind - Care and treatment - Voluntary patient - Previous detention in pursuance of order under Mental Treatment Act, 1930 - Direction of Board of Control -
On September 29, 1933, the respondent wife was received as a temporary patient into a mental hospital under s. 5 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930. On March 1, 1934, the Board of Control directed, under s. 5, sub-s. 13, of the Act, that the period of her treatment be extended for three months from March 25, 1934. On May 30, 1934, she was discharged relieved and was admitted into another mental hospital as a voluntary patient. On August 123, 1940, the respondent's husband presented a petition praying for a divorce on the ground that the respondent was incurably of unsound mind and had been “continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition,” within s. 176 of the
Held, the direction of the Board of Control was an “order” under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, within the meaning of s. 3 (a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937; that the respondent had been detained in pursuance thereof for a period immediately preceding her treatment as a voluntary patient within s. 3 (b) of the Act; and that the husband, therefore, was entitled to a decree.
HUSBAND'S PETITION for dissolution of marriage.
By his petition, dated August 13, 1940, the husband prayed for a divorce on the ground that his wife was “incurably of unsound mind” and had been “continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition,” within s. 176 of the
On September 29, 1933, the wife was received as a temporary patient under s. 5 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, into the County Mental Hospital, Chester. On February 26, 1934, application was made to the Board of Control for an extension of her treatment in that hospital under the provisions of s. 5, and on March 1, 1934, the secretary of the Board of Control issued a direction to the medical superintendent of the hospital in the following terms: “The Board of Control having considered the application of the husband and the recommendation of the acting medical superintendent of the County Mental Hospital, Upton, Chester, hereby direct in pursuance of s. 5, sub-s. 13, of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, that the period of temporary treatment of Mrs. Florence Emily Benson be extended for a period not exceeding three calendar months from March 25, 1934.” The wife remained at the Chester hospital until May 30, 1934, when she was discharged relieved and was admitted as a voluntary patient under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, into the County Mental Hospital, Lancaster, where she had been as a voluntary patient ever since.
In the answer, filed by the guardian ad litem on behalf of the respondent, the issue was joined.
The President heard arguments on the question whether the wife had been “continuously under care and treatment” for the statutory period within the meaning of ss. 2 (d) and 3 (a) and (b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937F2.
R. P. Hollins for the petitioner.
Holroyd Pearce for the Official Solicitor, as guardian ad litem of the respondent.
THE PRESIDENT (LORD MERRIMAN) [after stating the facts:] Sect. 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, provides that a person of unsound mind shall be deemed to be under care and treatment …. (b) while he is receiving treatment as a voluntary patient under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, being treatment which follows without any interval a period of such detention as aforesaid; and not otherwise.” The words “period of such detention as aforesaid” pick up the provisions of para. (a), the relevant words of which are “while he is detained in pursuance of any order …. under the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salim Anthony v Sumitomo Corporation Capital Asia Pte Ltd and Others and Another Application
...and the other without the same: at [12]. Bank of India v Rai Bahadur Singh [1993] 2 SLR (R) 1; [1993] 2 SLR 592 (refd) Benson v Benson [1941] P 90; [1941] 2 All ER 335 (folld) Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; [1954] 3 All ER 745 (refd) Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese B......
-
Promedia Drukkers & Uitgewers (Edms) Bpk v Kaimowitz and Others
...in the judgment of the Court: Athmaram v Singh 1989 (3) SA 953 (D) Bakoven Ltd v G J Howes (Pty) Ltd 1992 (2) SA 466 (E) Benson v Benson [1941] P 90 ([1941] 2 All ER 335 (PDA)) Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal 1985 (2) SA 756 (A) Dawson and Fraser (Pty) Ltd v Havenga Construction (Pty) Ltd 1......
- Asc v Melbourne Asset Management Nominees Pty Ltd
-
The Central Planning Authority Appellant v The National Conservation Council Respondent and Cayman Property Investments Ltd Interested Party
...making an order and such a power is not delegable. In different statutory contexts that is correct. Sir Jeffrey relied on Benson v Benson [1941] P 90 in which the direction of the Board of Control under the Mental Treatment Act 1930 was construed as an order within the meaning of the Matrim......
-
PRACTICE DIRECTION
...6th Edition at p. 237, the word "direction" means, "order" or "instruction what to do, point to or from" And in Benson v. Benson (1941) p. 90 at p. 97 Lord Merriman P. considering S. 5 (13) of the Mental Treatment Act 1930 where the Board of Control was empowered to direct that a period of ......
-
American Business and Germany, 1930-1941
...to Wendell R. Swint, director ofDu Pont’s foreign relations department: 26 Fritz Thyssen, I Paid Hitler (New York: Farrer & Rinehart, 1941), pp. 90-92, 98, 100-103; ward N. Peterson, Hjalmar Schacht: A Political-Economic Study of Germany, 1923-1945 (Boston: Christopher, 1954), pp. 26ff, 119......