Blame-free divorce, but how fair? Pt 2

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

Blame-free divorce, but how fair? Pt 2

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.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation

NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere

Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group

NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall

A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision

NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?

An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading

Error message

Blame-free divorce, but how fair? Pt 2

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

R3—Jodie Wildridge