That principle has been recognized in numerous decisions of our own courts and British courts for many years and all the authorities were reviewed in the recent case of Beard v. Beard [1946] P 8, 114 LJP 33, [1945] 2 All ER 306, and of which the headnote (in [1945] 2 All ER) is in part as follows: “(iii) A difference in kind between the new and the old matrimonial misconduct would not prevent the new from reviving the old. It was the generic and not the specific quality of the conduct that mattered. “(iv) Subsequent matrimonial misconduct, provided it was sufficiently serious for the court to regard it as a substantial breach of conjugal duty, would revive a condoned matrimonial offence even if such misconduct would not in itself be sufficient to justify a decree of divorce. The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to a decree nisi.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.