Owens V Owens - No divorce for Tini Owens

macman

bap98189 wrote: »

What about it? Should one person have the right to force another to remain their spouse against their will?

This seems to be where the law stands at the moment, but hopefully someone in government will change this.

Correct. This is exactly where the law stands at present, and Mrs Owens appears to have been very badly advised by her legal team.
However, it should be remembered that contested divorce petitions are incredibly rare: I believe it's around 2%. Mr Owens' case is unusual in that he clearly has the financial wherewithal to go with his stubbornness in not to admit to being at fault in the breakdown of the marriage.
The Supreme Court does not make the law, it merely interprets it, and in this case they have done so correctly. Reform, which I would support, is a matter for the politicians.

onomatopoeia99

bap98189 wrote: »

What about it? Should one person have the right to force another to remain their spouse against their will?

This seems to be where the law stands at the moment, but hopefully someone in government will change this.

We don't have no consent, no fault divorce on demand, which is what you're suggesting there should be.

The last time divorce law reform was attempted to give a one year no consent, no fault option it was blocked in parliament and a lot of people on here spoke against it happening.

unholyangel

macman wrote: »

Correct. This is exactly where the law stands at present, and Mrs Owens appears to have been very badly advised by her legal team.
However, it should be remembered that contested divorce petitions are incredibly rare: I believe it's around 2%. Mr Owens' case is unusual in that he clearly has the financial wherewithal to go with his stubbornness in not to admit to being at fault in the breakdown of the marriage.
The Supreme Court does not make the law, it merely interprets it, and in this case they have done so correctly. Reform, which I would support, is a matter for the politicians.

According to the judgement in question, in E&W there were 114,000 petitions for divorce filed in 2016 and only 800 answers filed (around 0.7%) - with even less going on to be contested at the hearing (estimated at 0.015% of petitions).

The thing in this judgement is that the court agrees the marriage has irretrievably broken down. They just don't think that it would be unreasonable to expect the wife to continue to live with him, as that is what the test actually is - not that the behaviour itself was unreasonable (because we can all behave unreasonably at times) but that to expect them to continue to live with them (in consideration of that behaviour) would be unreasonable.

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

If you're in an abusive relationship, you can divorce on the grounds of unreasonsable behaviour without needing consent from the abuser.

If you can prove it - which I'm sure you can appreciate presents certain difficulties, particularly with most abusers being master manipulators.

badmemory

I think she should announce to the world that the judgements have made her see her marriage in a new light & she now wishes it to continue & will be moving back in with him. That should set the cat among the pigeons.

unholyangel

badmemory wrote: »

I think she should announce to the world that the judgements have made her see her marriage in a new light & she now wishes it to continue & will be moving back in with him. That should set the cat among the pigeons.

Thats what he wants - he thinks the other man she's seeing is the one who has influenced her to divorce him and his marriage has not broken down.

Even the judge said he was deluding himself.