header-logo header-logo

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

End nigh for unreasonable behaviour?

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‘For far too long, couples have been forced into needless acrimony and conflict in order to satisfy an outdated legal requirement.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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll