header-logo header-logo

Major report says ‘fault’ fuels divorce acrimony

30 October 2017
Issue: 7768 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Divorce law in England and Wales encourages dishonesty and conflict, and is out of step with the law in Scotland and most countries in Europe and North America.

That’s the conclusion of a major report commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation and led by Professor Liz Trinder, University of Essex, Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales. The reason is the ‘fault’ aspect of divorce, where a person wishing to divorce within two years (or five years if their spouse doesn’t consent) must claim unreasonable behaviour on the part of their partner. In practice, these claims cannot be investigated by the court or easily rebutted by the responding party—the court did not raise questions about the truth of a petition in any of the 592 case files analysed, despite evidence that respondents disagreed with the claims.

In England and Wales in 2015, 60% of divorces were granted on the basis of adultery or behaviour, compared to only 6% in Scotland, where couples can obtain a divorce after one year if both parties agree.

Moreover, the use of ‘fault’ fuels conflict and bitterness, which can have a detrimental knock-on effect on children. Some 62% of petitioners and 78% of respondents said using ‘fault’ had made the process more bitter, and 21% said it made it harder to sort out arrangements for children.

Prof Trinder’s report recommends removing fault entirely from divorce law and replacing it with a notification system where one or both parties register irretrievable breakdown of their marriage, and then confirm their decision after a minimum period of six months.

‘This study shows that we already have something tantamount to immediate unilateral divorce “on demand”, but masked by an often painful, and sometimes destructive, legal ritual with no obvious benefits for the parties or the state,’ she said.

‘A clearer and more honest approach, that would also be fairer, more child-centred and cost-effective, would be to reform the law to remove fault entirely.’

Resolution’s Chair Nigel Shepherd, chair of family lawyers group Resolution, which has campaigned for no-fault divorce for years, said: ‘This authoritative, academic research should eliminate any doubt from government that the law needs to change.’

Issue: 7768 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll