The Intersection of the Rule in Yerkey v Jones and Contemporary Anti-Discrimination Law in Australia – Can the ‘Special Wives’ Equity Survive?

K. Yin, M. Naser
{"title":"The Intersection of the Rule in Yerkey v Jones and Contemporary Anti-Discrimination Law in Australia – Can the ‘Special Wives’ Equity Survive?","authors":"K. Yin, M. Naser","doi":"10.53300/001c.35703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The High Court in Yerkey v Jones considered the enforceability of a guarantee provided by a married woman to secure her husband’s debts. Dixon J said that although the relationship of husband and wife did not give rise to a presumption of undue influence, the law had never been divested completely of ‘the equitable presumption of an invalidating tendency’. Dixon J’s formulation was essentially adopted by the majority justices in Garcia v National Australia Bank and their judgment thus represents the definitive endorsement of Dixon J’s view. Kirby J on the other hand rejected ‘the stereotype underlying Yerkey’, which he described as evidence of an ‘unprincipled discriminatory category’. This article advances the argument that the majority’s view of wives was stereotypical and accordingly would be inconsistent with the principles of contemporary sex discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination based on the assumption of stereotypical views. This inconsistency will be explored by first discussing the propositions that underpinned the Yerkey and Garcia, and by comparing them with the treatment of those propositions in contemporary discrimination law.","PeriodicalId":33279,"journal":{"name":"Bond Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.35703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The High Court in Yerkey v Jones considered the enforceability of a guarantee provided by a married woman to secure her husband’s debts. Dixon J said that although the relationship of husband and wife did not give rise to a presumption of undue influence, the law had never been divested completely of ‘the equitable presumption of an invalidating tendency’. Dixon J’s formulation was essentially adopted by the majority justices in Garcia v National Australia Bank and their judgment thus represents the definitive endorsement of Dixon J’s view. Kirby J on the other hand rejected ‘the stereotype underlying Yerkey’, which he described as evidence of an ‘unprincipled discriminatory category’. This article advances the argument that the majority’s view of wives was stereotypical and accordingly would be inconsistent with the principles of contemporary sex discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination based on the assumption of stereotypical views. This inconsistency will be explored by first discussing the propositions that underpinned the Yerkey and Garcia, and by comparing them with the treatment of those propositions in contemporary discrimination law.
“耶基诉琼斯案”规则与当代澳大利亚反歧视法的交集——“特殊妻子”权益能否继续存在?
高等法院在耶基诉琼斯案中考虑了已婚妇女为其丈夫的债务提供担保的可执行性。Dixon J说,尽管夫妻关系没有产生不当影响的推定,但法律从未完全剥夺“无效倾向的衡平法推定”。迪克森J的提法在加西亚诉澳大利亚国民银行案中被多数法官采纳,因此他们的判决代表了对迪克森J观点的最终认可。另一方面,柯比·J反对“耶基背后的刻板印象”,他将其描述为“无原则的歧视类别”的证据。本文提出的论点是,大多数人对妻子的看法是陈规定型的,因此不符合当代性别歧视法的原则,这些法律禁止基于陈规定型观点的假设进行歧视。我们将首先讨论支撑耶基案和加西亚案的命题,并将它们与当代歧视法中对这些命题的处理进行比较,从而探讨这种不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信