This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/25/supreme-court-rules-unhappy-marriage-not-grounds-for-divorce-tini-hugh-owens

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Unhappy marriage not grounds for divorce, supreme court rules Unhappy marriage not grounds for divorce, supreme court rules
(about 3 hours later)
A woman who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost her case in the supreme court. A woman who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost her case. Judges “reluctantly” told her she must remain his wife, because an unhappy marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree.
Five justices upheld rulings by a family court and the court of appeal that Tini Owens must stay married to Hugh Owens. Five judges at the UK’s highest court unanimously upheld rulings by a family court and the court of appeal that Tini Owens, 68, must stay married to Hugh Owens, 80, despite her complaint that the marriage is loveless and has broken down.
Tini, who is in her late 60s, wants a divorce. She says her marriage to Hugh, who is in his 80s, is loveless and has broken down. “The appeal of Mrs Owens must be dismissed. She must remain married to Mr Owens for the time being,” supreme court judge Lord Wilson said in the majority judgment. But, he added: “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.”
She says he has behaved unreasonably and that she should be allowed to end her marriage. Hugh, however,refuses to agree to a divorce and denies her allegations about his behaviour. He says that if their marriage has irretrievably broken down it is because she had an affair, or because she is “bored”. Tini’s case has thrust the country’s lack of provision for no-fault divorce into the spotlight. Even spouses mutually seeking to end a marriage must, unless they have been living apart, assign blame and make often-damaging allegations, which lawyers say can turn potentially amicable proceedings inflammatory.
The couple married in 1978 and lived in Broadway, Worcestershire, the judges heard. Tini petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out. Tini and Hugh were married in 1978, lived together in Broadway, Worcestershire, and have two grown-up children. Tini first consulted solicitors about a divorce in 2012. However, despite her engaging in an affair, they remained living together until February 2015.
The supreme court justices analysed the rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of “unreasonable” behaviour and “fault”, at a hearing in London in May and delivered their ruling on Wednesday. In May of that year, Tini petitioned for divorce, alleging that her husband had prioritised his work over their home life, that his treatment of her lacked love and affection, that he had often been moody and argumentative, that he had disparaged her in front of others, and that she had grown apart from him.
One, Lord Wilson, said he and his colleagues had ruled against Tini with reluctance. He also said there was a question for parliament in whether the law governing entitlement to divorce remained satisfactory. The supreme court justices analysed the rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of “unreasonable” behaviour and “fault”, at a hearing in London in May. They delivered their ruling on Wednesday.
Wilson noted that Tini would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple will have been separated for five years. Lord Wilson noted in the judgment that Tini would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple will have been separated for five years.
His colleague Lady Hale said she found the case very troubling, but that it was not for judges to change the law. In a concurring judgment, his colleague Lady Hale said she found it “a very troubling case”, but that it was not for judges to change the law.
Three appeal court judges also ruled against Tini last year on similar grounds. They said she had failed to establish in the legal sense that her marriage had broken down irretrievably. Barring a change of heart by Hugh, Tini must remain married to him until at least 2020, by which time she will be eligible for a divorce without consent or evidence of fault.
One judge said she had reached her conclusion with “no enthusiasm whatsoever” but that it was for parliament to decide whether to introduce “no fault” divorce on demand. Resolution, the organisation that represents 6,500 lawyers working in family law and supports the introduction of no-fault divorce, said the judgment confirms there is a “divorce crisis” in England and Wales.
Another said parliament had decreed that being in a “wretchedly unhappy marriage” was not a ground for divorce. While it is rare for spouses to defend a petition for a divorce, legislation makes it difficult for even mutual divorces where, in the absence of a period living apart, one party must provide evidence of unreasonable behaviour or adultery before the marriage can be ended.
Tini’s lawyers argued that she should not have to prove that Hugh’s behaviour had been unreasonable, but only that she should not “reasonably be expected” to stay with him. Nigel Shepherd, the body’s former chair and long-time campaigner for no-fault divorce, said: “Resolution intervened on behalf of Mrs Owens because we believed that under the current law there should be a way to free her from a marriage that is clearly over.
The case was about the proper interpretation of legislation, they said. “In practice, our current laws can often create unnecessary conflict in divorce – forcing couples to blame each other when there is no real need, other than a legal requirement, to do so. For over 30 years, Resolution has been campaigning for a system fit for a modern age, where separating couples are treated like responsible adults and supported to resolve their differences as amicably as possible.”
Philip Marshall QC, who leads Tini’s legal team, told the supreme court that a “modest shift” of focus in the interpretation of legislation was required. Simon Fisher, a divorce lawyer at solicitors Gardner Leader, said it was likely that divorce petitions would likely become more extreme. “It’s extremely likely that we’ll see a rise in divorce petitions containing embellished and inflammatory grounds for divorce to ensure that applications proceed without any issues as in the Owens’ case,” he said.
Nigel Dyer QC, who leads Hugh’s legal team, disagreed and raised concern about the introduction of divorce on demand.
Lady Hale said: “I have found this case very troubling. It is not for us to change the law laid down by parliament. Our role is only to interpret and apply the law.” She said she had been “reluctantly persuaded” that Tini’s appeal should be dismissed.
Neither Tini nor Hugh was in court to hear the ruling delivered.
UK supreme courtUK supreme court
DivorceDivorce
MarriageMarriage
FamilyFamily
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content