Unusually, Mr Owens decided to defend the divorce proceedings and perhaps even more unusually, the judge in London agreed with him, despite the amended petition containing 27 specific allegations of the husband\u2019s unreasonable behaviour. The judge complained that the petition was hopeless, was scraping the barrel and lacked beef. He thought that the wife had exaggerated the context and gravity of the husband\u2019s behaviour and ordered substantial costs against her.<\/span><\/p>\n Regrettably, the Court of Appeal\u2019s hands were tied because of the limitations in what it could do on appeal. Handing down his judgment, Sir James Munby asked himself the question as to whether the law was in a remotely satisfactory condition. He clearly thought not when he later noted that it was hypocritical when spouses and their family lawyers still have to use fault-based grounds to progress divorces.<\/span><\/p>\n It is against most specialist family lawyers\u2019 code of conduct to be inflammatory and to encourage conflict and confrontation, but this essentially seems to be the outcome of the Owens\u2019 case. Mrs Owens has now taken her divorce to the Supreme Court; it is to be hoped that reason will prevail, and that she will not have to wait until she is 70 years old and there has been a 5-year separation before she can divorce and sort out the finances.<\/span><\/p>\n Many other countries, including America and Australia, have no-fault divorce and it is surely time that England follows suit. As Neil Sedaka sang in 1975, breaking up is hard to do. And as this case proves, for some the current law can make it even harder.<\/span>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/footer-300x100.png\")
<\/a>