header-logo header-logo

Owens: unreasonable behaviour on trial

15 June 2018 / Simon Blain
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7797_blain

How far will the Supreme Court go as it tackles Owens v Owens, asks Simon Blain

  • Owens v Owens in the Supreme Court.
  • The end of the road for ‘unreasonable behaviour’?

On 17 May, the Supreme Court heard the case of Owens v Owens . It is the first time that the ‘fault based’ divorce provisions in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) have been considered by the highest court.

The case is of huge significance to divorcing couples, and to the professionals who advise them. Resolution, the representative body for family justice professionals, intervened (full disclosure: the author is Treasurer of Resolution).

The Supreme Court considered the correct interpretation of s 1(2)(b), MCA 1973, which sets out the basis for divorce commonly referred to as ‘unreasonable behaviour’. Specifically, the court considered the extent to which the statute does or does not in fact require someone seeking a divorce to prove that his or her spouse’s unreasonable behaviour has caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

It could be

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

Weightmans—Nigel Adams & Rehman Noormohamed

Weightmans—Nigel Adams & Rehman Noormohamed

Insurance and corporate teams in London announce double partner hire

Fieldfisher—Chris Cartmell

Fieldfisher—Chris Cartmell

Technology and data practice bolstered by partner hire

South Square—Tony Beswetherick KC

South Square—Tony Beswetherick KC

Set strengthens civil fraud and insolvency offering with new member

NEWS
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
back-to-top-scroll