IN THE SUPREME COURT
B E T W E E N:
MRS SIMONE BOW
Appellant
and
MR PAUL JOHN
Respondent
APPELLANT'S SKELETON ARGUMENT
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Brickson-Mortar J, dismissing the claim of the appellant. It is
respectfully submitted that the decision should be overturned as Hardup Construction Ltd did not
behave inequitably and can therefore rely upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Background
2. Paul John and Simone Bow were married for about 2 years and throughout the relationship they made
an agreement to have sexual intercourse with other people as long as each of them was not in the same
country. The wife, Simone Bow had had sexual intercourse with men on fairly frequent basis both
before and after the wedding. During the same period, the husband Paul had only had occasionally
encounters with other men. Paul John decided to divorced Simone and messaged her asking when was
the last she had had sex with another men and she replied that she had sex with someone a month ago.
He filled a petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken down as
proven by the s1 (2) (a) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “adultery” fact).
3. The judge at first instance granted a decree nisi for the respondent based on that the sexual act
described in the text message was penetrative and met all requirements to be considered adultery in
accordance with Dennis v Dennis [1955] P 153.
.Submissions
4. The judge at first instance was wrong to conclude that marriage has irretrievably broken down on the
basis of the fact in s1 (2)(a) of the MCA 1973 because the petitioner, the respondent had consented in
advance to the sexual act with a person outside of the marriage.
5. That if the judge was not wrong in interpretation the MCA 1973 then a Declaration of incompatibility
should be made due to a breach of Article 14 in relation to Article 8 of ECHR that the appellant had
been discriminated against either on the basis of her sexual orientation or on the basis of her status as a
wife rather than a civil partner.
Conclusion
6. For the reasons stated above, it is submitted that the court overturn the decision of a decree nisi granted
and uphold the appeal..
B E T W E E N:
MRS SIMONE BOW
Appellant
and
MR PAUL JOHN
Respondent
APPELLANT'S SKELETON ARGUMENT
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Brickson-Mortar J, dismissing the claim of the appellant. It is
respectfully submitted that the decision should be overturned as Hardup Construction Ltd did not
behave inequitably and can therefore rely upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Background
2. Paul John and Simone Bow were married for about 2 years and throughout the relationship they made
an agreement to have sexual intercourse with other people as long as each of them was not in the same
country. The wife, Simone Bow had had sexual intercourse with men on fairly frequent basis both
before and after the wedding. During the same period, the husband Paul had only had occasionally
encounters with other men. Paul John decided to divorced Simone and messaged her asking when was
the last she had had sex with another men and she replied that she had sex with someone a month ago.
He filled a petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken down as
proven by the s1 (2) (a) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “adultery” fact).
3. The judge at first instance granted a decree nisi for the respondent based on that the sexual act
described in the text message was penetrative and met all requirements to be considered adultery in
accordance with Dennis v Dennis [1955] P 153.
.Submissions
4. The judge at first instance was wrong to conclude that marriage has irretrievably broken down on the
basis of the fact in s1 (2)(a) of the MCA 1973 because the petitioner, the respondent had consented in
advance to the sexual act with a person outside of the marriage.
5. That if the judge was not wrong in interpretation the MCA 1973 then a Declaration of incompatibility
should be made due to a breach of Article 14 in relation to Article 8 of ECHR that the appellant had
been discriminated against either on the basis of her sexual orientation or on the basis of her status as a
wife rather than a civil partner.
Conclusion
6. For the reasons stated above, it is submitted that the court overturn the decision of a decree nisi granted
and uphold the appeal..
