header-logo header-logo

20 February 2020 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7875 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Divorce reform: time to recognise gender equality?

16317
The lack of fairness in financial settlements means the Divorce, Dissolution & Separation Bill now going through Parliament misses the mark, says Dr Michael Arnheim
  • It’s time to place a time-limit on maintenance orders, as in many other jurisdictions including Scotland.
  • Prenuptial agreements recognised in many other jurisdictions should be placed on a principled legislative footing.

Divorce reform at last, nearly half a century since the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—how wonderful! Or is it? The government’s Divorce, Dissolution & Separation Bill now going through the House of Lords allows a ‘divorce order’ purely on the basis of a statement by one of the parties ‘that the marriage has broken down irretrievably’. The court ‘must take the statement to be conclusive evidence’ of its truth (clause 1(3)). Not ‘may’ but ‘must’. And what if the other party objects? Well, they just can’t (except on grounds of fraud or for some technical reason). So how can this be fair?

But the real objection to this

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll