header-logo header-logo

09 August 2018 / David Burrows
Issue: 7805 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Owens & how to plead a divorce case

nlj_7805_burrows

Mrs Owens & the Supreme Court: was all the relevant evidence heard before the court below? David Burrows investigates

  • Was Tini Owens given a proper trial of all of the allegations which she could have put before the first instance judge?

Mrs Tini Owens (TO) is to remain nominally married to Mr Hugh Owens (HO) ( Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41), at least till one of them can obtain a decree nisi based on their having lived apart for five years (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) s 1(2)(e)) in early 2020. The Supreme Court has refused her appeal, for much the same reason as did the Court of Appeal ( Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182, [2017] 4 WLR 74). However, in the course of the judgments of Lord Wilson and Lady Hale, disturbing elements of the way the case had been put before the court below emerged. These suggest that TO may not have been given a proper trial of all of the allegations

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

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

Broadfield—David Brennand

Broadfield—David Brennand

Corporate partner appointment strengthens firm’s investment funds practice

NEWS
LexisNexis will mark the 80th anniversary of Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law with a live podcast exploring the evolution of aviation law from the Chicago Convention to the challenges facing modern aerospace, taking place on Tuesday 29 September
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Indemnity costs remain exceptional, but parties cannot ignore a case that deteriorates around them. In Lawrence v Associated Newspapers, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay indemnity costs after finding their conduct, viewed cumulatively, fell ‘well outside the norm’
Public law is in flux following reversals and robust appellate intervention, according to the latest public law update by the team at HSFK for NLJ
Neurotechnology is turning the human mind into an operational domain, exposing gaps in the laws of war
back-to-top-scroll