“It has frequently been held that, as with all other matrimonial offences, the standard of proof required in respect of adultery is proof beyond reasonable doubt. But it has also been held that it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence, because, as it is rare to obtain direct evidence, there would be no protection for the wronged spouse if the rule were otherwise. (See Preston-Jones v. Preston Jones [1951] A.C. 391 at p. 401; Woolf v. Woolf [1931] P. 134 at p. 144). In Farnham v. Farnham (1925) 41 T.L.R. 543 at p. 544, Lord Merrivale, P., said.:- “The inference of adultery arises when there is proof of the disposition of parties to commit adultery together, with the opportunity for committing it” Lord Bucknaster said in Ross v. Ellison (or Ross) [1930] A.C.1, at p. 7- “It is easy to suggest conditions which can leave on doubt that adultery has been committed, but the mere fact that people are thrown together in an environment which lends itself to the commission of the offence is not enough unless it can be shown by. . . antecedent conduct that the association of the parties was so intimate and their mutual passion so clear that adultery might reasonably be assumed as the result of an opportunity for its occurrence.” Lord Atkin at page 21 of the same judgment said::- “But from opportunities alone no inference of misconduct can fairly be drawn unless the conduct of the parties prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent justifies the inference that such feelings existed between the parties that opportunities if given would be used for misconduct.” From the foregoing it will be seen that the fact that adultery has taken place is an inference from all the surrounding circumstances of each case. And such inference may be drawn from confessions, admissions, undue familiarity, suspicious circumstances and improper behavior. For instance, in Roast v. Roast [1938] P. 8,17, it was decided that for the purpose of ascertaining the truth, the Court was entitled to consider whether the party alleged to be guilty of adultery was the author of a certain filthy literature found in her bag. Therefore, if there is evidence of undue familiarity, suspicious circumstances, and improper behavior, the Court is entitled, upon a consideration of each particular case, to find as a fair inference that such behavior leads as a necessary conclusion to adultery. See Loveden v. Loveden Hagg. Cons.1, 2; Allen v. Allen [1894] P. 248, 252). And where there is evidence of a guilty inclination or, in the words of the learned Judge in this case, clear evidence of familiarity, and this is coupled with evidence of opportunity, this is strong prima facie evidence of adultery.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
