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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll