“The question which arises is, whether it is the duty of the Court to consider the degree of unsoundness of mind necessary. It is extremely difficult for any Court to lay down any test of degree of unsoundness of mind, and the Court has in another context when considering Sections 2 & 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, laid it down that it is not concerned with the degree of insanity – see Shipman v. Shipman [1939] P. 147 and Randall v. Randall [1939] P.13. In the later case, at p. 138 of the report, Sir Boyd Merriman, President of the Divorce Court, considering the case of a husband respondent who suffered from a mild type of unsoundness of mind said – “The respondent himself has admitted to everybody with whom he discussed this matter, in a perfectly sensible way, that at the time he was certified he was undoubtedly suffering from a very definite derangement of mind, but equally it is unquestionable in this case that the care and treatment which he has received continuously at Mr. Heywood’s Home – and it is all the more credit to Mr. Heywood that it is so – has had a most beneficial effect, and has got him into a state in which, to put it at its very lowest, it is at least doubtful whether any responsible medical man would certify him afresh at this moment. But it does not follow from that that he is not of unsound mind within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
