header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 October 2018 / David Burrows
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Family law 2018: on divorce reform

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

David Burrows assesses the government’s proposals for an overhaul of divorce law, & supplies some suggestions of his own

  • The government’s divorce reform proposals represent a step closer to ‘divorce on demand’ but lack the ability to contest an assertion of fact.
  • An alternative suggestion: divorce could be permitted by both parties agreeing that the marriage had broken down, or otherwise on proof of living apart for one year or more.

As a founder member of the Solicitors Family Law Association (now Resolution), I have always supported a divorce law which left as little as possible to be rooted in mutual incrimination. The law reformers tried to do this in the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (DRA 1969), s 1 (‘irretrievable breakdown’); but then facts (per DRA 1969, s 2(1)) got in the way. Interestingly, the government’s recent divorce reform proposals, Reducing family conflict—Reform of the legal requirements for divorce, September 2018, Ministry of Justice, suggest the one ground for divorce: irretrievable breakdown (as now the Matrimonial

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

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll