Lawyer Monthly Magazine - May 2019 Edition

refusing a divorce if their spouse still wants one after that time has elapsed. It will further introduce a new concept where there can be a joint application for divorce, which is intended to remove unnecessary hostility and blame. The government and family practitioners hope that this will encourage greater consensus and more amicable outcomes - in particular, helping to ameliorate the position for the children of divorced parents. Critically, the new legislation will also remove the ability of one party to contest a divorce against the wishes of the other. Although the ability of It will further introduce a new concept where there can be a joint application for divorce, which is intended to remove unnecessary hostility and blame. The government and family practitioners hope that this will encourage greater consensus and more amicable outcomes. a husband or wife to contest is used less than two per cent of divorces, this avenue was given considerable publicity by the long-running case, Owens v Owens, which ended last year. The Owens case was unusual because it reached the Supreme Court - the only contested divorce to do so for several years. By a majority ruling, the judges upheld earlier rulings by a family court and the court of appeal: that Mrs Owens had to remain married to a man whom she wanted to divorce because her husband would not consent to a divorce. The judges “reluctantly” told her that a joyless marriage was not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree. Through his lawyers, Mr Owens argued that his wife has failed to prove that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. “The appeal of Mrs Owens must be dismissed. She must remain married to Mr Owens for the time being”, the supreme court judge Lord Wilson said in his ruling. “Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances.” He added: The Family court takes no satisfaction when obliged to rule that a marriage which has broken down must nevertheless continue in being”. The verdict and the judges’ comments in the Owens case were the key catalysts for change. Although the new legislation will introduce a minimum timeframe of six months, giving couples time to reflect from petition to the final divorce order/decree absolute, it does not, however, go far enough. Once someone has made the decision to petition for divorce even six months will feel like too long to wait. LM LINDSAY YATEMAN Lindsay undertakes all family law work including divorce, Children Act ap- plications, cohabitation disputes, civil partnership dissolution and pre-nup- tial agreements. She has particular expertise in re- solving complex financial claims on divorce, which often include company as- sets, trusts and pensions. LINDSAY YATEMAN Solicitor at Excello Law www.excellolaw.co.uk 23 www. lawyer-monthly .com MAY 2019 Excello Law