For a more detailed discussion of the legal position of married women see HolcombeLee, Wives and Property, University of Toronto Press, 1983; ShanleyM., Feminism Marriage and the Law in Victorian England 1850–1895, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1989; YalomM., A History of the Wife, Pandora, London, 2001.
2.
Holcombe, above, ref 1.
3.
Holcombe, above, ref 1, p.30.
4.
PatemanCarole, The Sexual Contract, Polity, Cambridge, 1988, p.123.
5.
This position was somewhat eased by the Infant Custody Act of 1839.
6.
Unless the children were illegitimate then a wife not only had custody but a legal duty to maintain that child.
7.
AuchmutyRosemary, ‘The Fiction of Equity’, in Scott-HuntSusan and LimHilary, Feminist Perspectives on Equity and Trusts, Cavendish, London, 2001.
8.
ConwayMaggie, ‘Equity's Darling?’ in Scott-Hunt and Lim, Feminist Perspectives on Equity and Trusts, above, p.43.
9.
Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon, leading campaigner in the married women's property campaigns quoted in Auchmuty, above, p.14.
10.
Conway, above, ref 8, p.45.
11.
RidgePauline, ‘High Hopes: The Meaning and Merits of Unconscionability as the Rationale for the High Court's Decision in Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd’, National Law Review <www.nir.com.au>.
12.
Ridge, above, ref 11, p.3.
13.
MackenzieRobin, ‘Beauty and the Beastly Bank: What Should Equity's Fairy Wand Do?’ in BottomleyAnne (ed), Feminist Perspectives on the Foundational Subjects of Law, Cavendish, London, 1996, p.160.
14.
Mackenzie, above, ref 13, p.162.
15.
Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Equality Before the law: Women's Equality’, ALRC Report No 69, Pt II, 1994, 13.29.
16.
FehlbergBelinda, ‘Women in ‘Family’ Companies: English and Australian Experiences’, (1997) 15Companies and Securities Law Journal348.
17.
Fehlberg, ‘Women in Family Companies’, above, ref 16, p.364.
18.
Fehlberg, ‘Women in Family Companies’, above, ref 16, p.356.
19.
FehlbergBelinda, Sexually Transmitted Debt: Surety Experience and English LawClarendon PressOxford, 1997.
Haig and Hepburn have argued in ‘The Bank Manager Always Rings Twice: Stereotyping in Equity After Garcia’ (2000) 26Monash University Law Review275 that despite the stereotyping, the Garcia principle is useful because it provides the much needed protection.
24.
NaffineN., Law and the Sexes: Explorations in Feminist Jurisprudence, Allen and Unwin, Sydney1990, p.22.
25.
Naffine, Law and the Sexes, above, ref 24, p.23.
26.
SpenderPeta, ‘Women and the Epistemology of Corporations Law’, (1996) 6Legal Education Review196–7.
27.
BottomleyAnne, ‘Women and Trust(s): Portraying the Family in the Gallery of Law’ in BrightSusan and DewarJohn, Land Law Themes and Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford1998, p.219.
28.
OttoDianne, ‘Women's Inequality’, (1992) 18Melbourne University Law Review.
29.
Otto, above, ref 28, p.816.
30.
Otto, above, ref 28, p.816.
31.
Otto, above, ref 28, p.811.
32.
Otto, above, ref 28, p.812.
33.
Otto, above, ref 28, p.809.
34.
Auchmuty, above, ref 7, p.18.
35.
Mackenzie, above, ref 13, p.167.
36.
Mackenzie, above, ref 13, p.166–7.
37.
Mackenzie, above, ref 13, p.168.
38.
Warner, quoted in Mackenzie, above, ref 13, p.171.