header-logo header-logo

Family politics in 2017 manifestos

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

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

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