A contract to provide meretricious sexual services remains contrary to public policy and void, notwithstanding liberalised attitudes to extramarital cohabitation. The saving features identified in the authorities are: (1) the contract does not bring about extramarital cohabitation but makes provision for one already existing; and (2) the sexual relationship is part of a wider relationship including cohabitation and mutual support. A 'mistress' arrangement lacking these features is void. The public policy rule is not limited to contractual claims and equally defeats claims in equitable estoppel. The presumption against intention to create legal relations in social and domestic arrangements applies to mistress relationships.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 43 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 43 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.