header-logo header-logo

Blame-free divorce, but how fair? Pt 2

08 April 2022 / David Burrows
Issue: 7974 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail
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 worse

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll