Call for change in law as woman is denied divorce
Supreme Court rules in landmark case
English divorce law is outdated and archaic. Jane Auty, family law expert at Leeds-based Simpson Millar.
LAWYERS SAY ministers must reform England’s divorce law after five Supreme Court justices ruled that a 68-year-old woman had to stay in a “loveless” marriage she wants to end.
Specialist family lawyers said no-one should have to remain “trapped in a marriage” in the 21st Century, with a Yorkshire legal expert describing current divorce legislation as “archaic”.
Tini Owens wants a divorce because she says her marriage to Hugh Owens, 80, is loveless and has broken down.
She says he has behaved unreasonably and that she should not reasonably be expected to stay married.
But Mr Owens refuses to agree to a divorce and denies Mrs Owens’ allegations about his behaviour. He says if their marriage has irretrievably broken down it is because she had an affair, or because she is “bored”.
Mr and Mrs Owens married in 1978 and lived in Worcestershire. Mrs Owens petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out.
Two years ago a Family Court judge rejected her’ allegations and refused to grant her a divorce. Last year, three appeal judges said she had failed to establish that her marriage had, legally, irretrievably broken down and ruled against her.
One said Parliament would have to decide whether to introduce “no fault” divorce. and lives in Richmond said she found the case “very troubling” but said it was not for judges to change the law.
She said she had been “reluctantly persuaded” to dismiss Mrs Owen’s appeal.
It was indicated that Mrs Owen would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple have been separated for five years.
Mrs Owens’ solicitor Simon Beccle said: “[She] is devastated by this decision, which means that she cannot move forward with her life and obtain her independence from Mr Owens.”
Nigel Shepherd, a former chairman of Resolution, an association of specialist family lawyers, said there was a “divorce crisis” in England and Wales and called on the Government to take urgent action.
And Caroline Elliott, of law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said there was a “strong mood” for the introduction of “no fault” divorce and an opportunity for change had been missed.
Jane Auty, family law expert at Leeds-based Simpson Millar said: “This decision means Tini Owens will remain trapped in a ‘loveless marriage’ for another two years an incomprehensible idea in the 21st century. But such is the outdated and archaic legislation of English divorce law.”
Barrister Hamish Dunlop, a lawyer who represented Mr Owens said Supreme Court justices had rightly rejected Mrs Owens’ “attempt radically to reinterpret the requirements for a behaviour divorce”.