header-logo header-logo

27 June 2019
Issue: 7846 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Civil way
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 28 June 2019

Divorce bill conclusive; lift news; case pipeline; CICB change; appealing odds

BREAKING DOWN

‘My dear Parliamentary Counsel,

Further to my instructions published in the New Law Journal for 19 and 26 April 2019 (‘Civil way’, p17), you’ve done a magnificent job with the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill which was due to receive its second reading on 25 June 2019. Not sure about the title, though. I think The Great Escape might be better. I know I suggested an irrebuttable presumption of irretrievable breakdown but I was jesting. A statement by one of both the parties that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken is to be taken as conclusive evidence that this is so, may be going too far. Expect trouble. We need to squeeze into the primary legislation savings for fraud, coercion, mistake, lack of a dictionary to check the meaning of ‘irretrievably’ situations, don’t you think?

And thanks for the new s 10 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and s 48 of the Civil Partnership

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll