header-logo header-logo

Divorce: who’s to blame

02 October 2014 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
heaton_0

A recent appeal court ruling highlights the flaws in a fault-based divorce system, says Ed Heaton

In Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655, the Court of Appeal revisited the issue of when a decree nisi should be set aside. Mrs Price issued a petition for divorce on 14 November 2012, based upon Mr Price’s unreasonable behaviour, specifically his alleged profligacy with money. Mr Price, acting in person, filed an acknowledgement of service, in which he indicated an intention to defend the divorce, but no answer was subsequently received by the court. In the absence of any answer, Mrs Price filed an application for decree nisi on the basis that the divorce was undefended. On 29 January 2013, the court certified that Mrs Price was entitled to a decree and decree nisi was listed for pronouncement on 18 February 2013.

On 14 February 2013, Mr Price applied for the pronouncement to be vacated and for the court’s certificate to be set aside. The pronouncement was adjourned until

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll