header-logo header-logo

End nigh for unreasonable behaviour?

12 September 2018
Issue: 7808 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Ministry of Justice downplays rumours of no-fault divorce reform

Family lawyers are keenly anticipating the end of a long campaign for no-fault divorce. However, the Ministry of Justice has scotched reports that a consultation is imminent.

While the Justice Secretary, David Gauke has not made an official announcement, it was widely reported that he is preparing a consultation on no-fault divorce.

However, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said the recent reports that a consultation is underway have been overstated, although Gauke is ‘open’ to introducing the reform. The spokesperson said Gauke's position remained the same as in a May interview with The Times, where he said he was ‘increasingly persuaded’ of the need for divorce law reform and believed the current system creates ‘unnecessary antagonism in an already difficult and sensitive set of circumstances’.

Currently, unless a separating couple have lived apart for at least two years, one spouse must apportion blame by accusing the other of adultery or unreasonable behaviour in order to divorce.

In July, the Supreme Court held that Tini Owens must remain married to her husband, Hugh, in an appeal that Lord Wilson said ‘generates uneasy feelings’. Lady Hale said she had found the case ‘very troubling’ but that it was ‘not for us to change the law laid down by Parliament’.

Resolution’s former chair and longtime campaigner for reform, Nigel Shepherd, said 1.7 million people have assigned blame in the divorce process since 1996, and ‘many didn’t have to’.

‘Resolution has been leading the campaign to end the blame game for over 30 years,’ he said.

‘For far too long, couples have been forced into needless acrimony and conflict in order to satisfy an outdated legal requirement. Everyday our members see the devastating impact conflict can have on families. Apportioning blame can lead to long-term damage to relationships between children and their parents, and can undermine attempts to resolve matters outside of an already overstretched court system.’

Family lawyer Simon Burge, partner at Blake Morgan, said: ‘Too often divorce hearings focus on blame and allegations as a means to an end, which only increases acrimony at a time when there are more important matters to discuss—such as pensions, mortgages and maintenance payments.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll