Demands for no-fault divorce increase ahead of Owens v Owens
Baroness Hale, President of the Supreme Court, has championed no-fault divorce in a speech to family lawyers, a month before the court is due to hear the high-profile case of Owens v Owens.
Addressing family justice organisation Resolution’s annual conference in Bristol this week, Baroness Hale said current divorce law is ‘confusing and misleading’ as well as discriminatory since many poorer parties, including victims of abuse, cannot afford to separate from their spouse until they get the court orders available only on divorce. She said it provokes bitterness and can make things worse for children.
However, she emphasised that the court’s job is to interpret the law, and only Parliament can legislate.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, two years’ separation is required to prove irretrievable breakdown with consent and five years’ without. However, couples can speed up the process by basing their divorce application on adultery or behaviour (these are the basis of 56% of divorces in England and Wales).
Next month, the Supreme Court is due to hear Owens v Owens, in which Mrs Owens will appeal the decision not to grant her a divorce because the examples she provided of ‘unreasonable behaviour’ were deemed not ‘unreasonable’ enough.
Resolution has argued for years that allowing couples to divorce without one partner having to blame the other for the breakdown would help couples minimise acrimony and its miserable effect on children.
Margaret Heathcote, Resolution’s National Chair, said: ‘It is ridiculous that, in the 21st century, Mrs Owens has had to go to the highest court in the land in order to try to get her divorce.
‘Resolution will be at the Supreme Court next month as interveners, showing our support for Mrs Owens and countless others like her.’
Family lawyer Richard Kershaw, partner at Hunters Solicitors, said: ‘The call for no-fault divorces has become the orthodoxy in family law circles.
‘The Supreme Court case of Owens will further the debate and bring it increasingly to the attention of the public, although it will need Parliament to legislate a change in the law.’
