header-logo header-logo

08 June 2017
Issue: 7749 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Family politics in 2017 manifestos

Conservative Party silent on no fault divorce & cohabitation rights

‘No-fault divorce’ received the backing of every main party apart from the Conservatives in the run-up to the General Election.

Neither ‘no-fault divorce’ nor greater rights for cohabiting couples is mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. As far as family law is concerned, its sole pledge is to bring forward a Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill in the next Parliament to consolidate civil and criminal protections and create an aggravated offence where behaviour is directed at a child.

In contrast, Labour, the Liberal-Democrats, Plaid Cymru and UKIP have all promised to introduce no-fault divorce.

Referring to the recent case of Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182, in which the Court of Appeal refused a divorce to a wife trapped in an unhappy marriage, Lib Dem justice spokesperson Lord Marks described current divorce law as ‘absurdly old-fashioned’ and ‘not fit for purpose’.

‘We need a no fault system where irretrievable breakdown of marriage is genuinely the only ground for divorce and no-one should have to prove unreasonable behaviour on the part of their spouse,’ he told NLJ.

UKIP justice spokesman, Peter Jewell, favoured no-fault divorce with a one-year time limit. Plaid Cymru justice spokesperson, Liz Saville Roberts said ‘no-fault divorce’ was ‘long overdue for introduction ’.

Meanwhile, the parties were less united on rights for cohabiting couples.

Last year, the Lib Dems put forward to Parliament the Cohabitation Rights Bill incorporating Law Commission proposals giving couples fair and reasonable redress upon relationship breakdown and intestacy. Lord Marks said the party would seek to reintroduce it in the next Parliament, and to continue to raise awareness of the issue.

Saville Roberts said Plaid Cymru would implement the Law Commission’s proposals and hold a further review in five years to consider the case for further extension of rights.

UKIP’s Peter Jewell, however, opposed greater rights for cohabitants on the basis of both freedom of choice and the problem of defining when and how legal rights would be triggered.

Both Labour and Conservative manifestos are silent on the issue.

Issue: 7749 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

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