header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 April 2022 / David Burrows
Issue: 7974 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Blame-free divorce, but how fair? Pt 2

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
77724
Is there any civil right to reply to an assertion of irretrievable breakdown? David Burrows investigates
  • The reforms to the divorce process have opened up the question of whether a spouse or civil partner responding to an assertion of irretrievable breakdown has the ability to challenge it on a human rights basis.

The reforms to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) on divorce—parallel reforms for civil partnership dissolution are in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004)—came into force on 6 April 2022 (for an introduction to the new law, see ‘Blame-free divorce, but how fair? Pt 1’ NLJ, 4 March 2022, p13). The aim of the short Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 which brought in the reforms is to remove blame from the process. Though reformers dislike it being said, the new s 1, MCA 1973 and ss 37A and 44, CPA 2004 represent divorce or civil partnership dissolution on demand (and, subject to what follows, these provisions are mostly none the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll