Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
����������� This matter comes before me as a petition issued by the petitioner against the respondent in which she seeks dissolution of her marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage on the ground that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
����������� Before turning to the facts of this case, it may be helpful if I set out the legal principles that govern a case of this nature:
3.�������� It may in any given case be unreasonable for a respondent to make inordinate demands for sexual intercourse or for sexual intimacy.
5.�������� Corroboration of the petitioner's evidence is not required as an absolute rule of law, but in matrimonial cases corroboration is desirable, although much less so than in former times (see Rayden on Divorce 17 th Edition paragraph 8.25).
6.�������� A petitioner may not lead evidence of particular facts not referable to any specific allegation in the petition (see Gunner �v- Gunner 1954 1 AER 695 and Thompson �v- Thompson 1957 P. 19).� However an adjournment might be granted to enable the petition to be amended and the respondent to meet the charge.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.