header-logo header-logo

16 March 2007 / Andrew Greensmith
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Opinion , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Nobody's fault

Removing fault from the divorce process would dignify proceedings, says Andrew Greensmith

Resolution has always been supportive of the institution of marriage. The association addressed the concept of no fault divorce in its response to the government’s initiative in the early 90s, when it published a green paper in 1993 entitled Looking to the Future—Mediation and the Ground for Divorce. Resolution believes the time is right for the subject to be debated again. Hopefully, this time change will be effected.

To understand why it is a natural progression to move to a no fault divorce, and to see why such a move does not undermine marriage, we need to consider what purpose the divorce process is intended to serve.

When two people marry they are making a public statement that they wish to be recognised as a married couple and, usually, that they wish to live together as an ‘item’. When they divorce, they are signalling to the world that their marriage has broken down and that they wish, once again, to be recognised

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll