SYNOPSIS

TITLE: Fender v. St. John-Mildmay

INTRODUCTION: A promise made by one spouse, after a decree nisi for the dissolution
of the marriage has been pronounced, to marry a third person after the decree has been
made absolute is not void as being against public policy, and an action for damages for
breach of the promise is maintainable by the third person.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

HYPOTHESIS:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: The project is completely based on Doctrinal Method of

Research.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

1)

CONTENTS:

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1) In 1930 the plaintiff, a young woman, met the defendant, who was, to her knowledge,
a married man.
2) In 1932 sexual intercourse began to take place between them.
3) On January 16, 1933, the defendant's wife obtained a decree nisi for the dissolution of
her marriage with him.
4) On February 21 and in April, 1933, the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff
when his wife's decree should be made absolute.
5) On July 31, 1933, the decree was made absolute, but the defendant refused to marry
the plaintiff.
6) The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming damages for breach of
promise of marriage.

ISUUES RAISE:

Whether the act of defendant of promising the plaintiff to marry her after the decree nisi
made absolute is valid under public policy?
TRIAL COURT:

TRIAL COURT: Hawke J., before whom the action was tried, held that the promise made by the
defendant, who, notwithstanding the granting of the decree nisi, was under full marital obligation
to his wife, was illegal and unenforceable as being against public policy, and accordingly held that
the action was not maintainable.

APPELLETE COURT: On appeal the Court of Appeal (Greer L.J. dissenting) affirmed the
decision of Hawke J. and dismissed the appeal.