Owens V Owens - No divorce for Tini Owens

fibonarchie

It doesn't matter if people on the internet understand or misunderstand the criteria, it's the courts (ie the legal experts) who decide, and they've made a decision. There are no grounds for divorce, so she'll have to wait till 2020.

Robisere

If she waits until he dozes off in his armchair, then creeps up behind him with a klaxon horn or other loud noisemaker ....


Well, he is 80.

Katapolt

Whilst i understand the law, its a very sad time for humanity.
No one should be forced into anything they dont want. His rejection to accept the divorce shouldnt be her issue - just because he cannot accept its over, he needs counselling, and she needs freedom.

badmemory

Unfortunately the judges were correct. It is unfortunate that the law as it stands makes the judges correct. I wonder what would happen if she tried to move back in with him as that is presumably what he wants if he wishes the marriage to continue. I also wonder what his will says. If she isn't in it significantly then his actions appear spiteful.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

badmemory wrote: »

Unfortunately the judges were correct. It is unfortunate that the law as it stands makes the judges correct. I wonder what would happen if she tried to move back in with him as that is presumably what he wants if he wishes the marriage to continue. I also wonder what his will says. If she isn't in it significantly then his actions appear spiteful.

It could well be a reason for doing it - if they divorce, there is a split in assets. If he dies, the assets are distributed according to his will, I'd imagine.

unholyangel

Thankfully we're 1 year with consent and 2 years without in scotland.

I'm all for marriage being portrayed as a serious commitment etc but also think that there is little point in tying two parties together when there is no hope of reconciliation and it also makes it harder for those in abusive relationships to leave when their partner can refuse to consent and stop them moving on with their lives for more than 5 years.

onomatopoeia99

It's weird, all the posters that normally speak against divorce law reform are silent today. What's that all about?

mattpaint

This is just another case of the law not listening to women. The court doesn't accept that the marriage has broken down despite this woman telling them that it has. Instead it is listening to the man who says the marriage isn't dead. It's outrageous and legal reform is needed immediately.

Rubik

mattpaint wrote: »

This is just another case of the law not listening to women. The court doesn't accept that the marriage has broken down despite this woman telling them that it has. Instead it is listening to the man who says the marriage isn't dead. It's outrageous and legal reform is needed immediately.

Seriously??? This has nothing to do with gender, the law has been correctly applied as the petitioner did not establish in law that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

I do wish feminists would stop portraying women as weak, vulnerable victims. We are not.

DigForVictory

I note with interest that Robin Stewart Tolson QC does not appear to have a wikipedia page on which I see what his marital status is. Or has been.

Doubtless he is correctly enjoying his right to a private life, whilst the media shreds that of those in his court.