In vivid, gut-wrenching drama, the scriptwriters have brought us to the topical issue of no-fault divorce. Shula initiated the process because she simply didn’t love him anymore. Alistair was completely oblivious to that fact and said she was unreasonable in thinking so. Cue raking over 20 years of potential unreasonable behaviour – coinciding with the announcement by the Justice Secretary, David Gauke, on 15 September this year, of the Government’s consultation and plan to ‘end the blame game’.
In the year to 2017, there were 110,000 divorces. 3 out of 5 of them cited ‘conduct’ as the reason for the breakdown of their marriage; that is, on the current law, an accusation of adultery or unreasonable behaviour on the part of their spouse. In research by YouGov in 2015, 27% of those initiating the divorce said that they had made up the allegations. This manipulation of the truth for the sake of a legal construct does nothing to preserve the remnant of a relationship, particularly if there are children involved. Not knowing just how unreasonable ‘unreasonable behaviour’ must be, encourages petitioners to throw at it the kitchen sink! This now particularly resonates following the unhappy experience of Tini Mills in the Supreme Court this year who was unable to get her divorce from husband Hugh for want of strong enough reasons.
The Government admits that conduct arguments do not serve the public interest and can be damaging for children; parties ought to be looking forward and not backwards. The proposal is to change the law and remove the fault-based reasons for divorce and replace it with a simple (potentially joint) application process. They will retain the same ground as is currently – that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
There is also a proposal to remove the possibility of defending/opposing the divorce. Many respondents choose to defend because they object to the reasons given for the marriage breakdown, but still acknowledge that there had been a breakdown. If one party believes the marriage is over, it generally is. In reality, only 2% of respondents last year actively pursued a defence; presumably, legal advice about the cost and prospect of success dissuaded the others.
Alistair and Shula have now come to their senses and agreed on a way forward. It has taken a long time, involved much middle-class harrumphing and soul-searching, but now Alistair will be the Petitioner and Shula will take it on the chin. If the Government implement the proposals for reform, they will be able to petition jointly without raising behaviour (even if it really is Alistair’s fault – his gambling and debt was the final straw!).
For more information on divorce matters, please contact Elizabeth Wyatt.
The European Court has upheld the long-standing principle that parties to a dispute should be able to choose their lawyers without having to go through a tender process (or use a framework).
On 8 July, news broke of the staggering fine of more than £183m the ICO intended to levy against British Airways as a result of a hack that took place in 2018, compromising 500,000 customers' data.
The Government has been refused permission to appeal a decision ruling that transitional arrangements in public sector pension schemes are discriminatory.
The Lifeline Project was a well-regarded charity. Failure to carry out the targets within the contracts led the charity into insolvency and resulted in a personal, 7-year disqualification order.
Many local authorities have assessed that a trading subsidiary or trading structure could be beneficial as part of generating income or the service delivery matrix.
On 23 July, trainees from Anthony Collins Solicitors will host an ‘experience day’, which will involve various activities and presentations, with lawyers and non-lawyers from across the firm.
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) has launched a new scheme specifically for charities and not-for-profit organisations who want to advise EU citizens on UK settlement.
In the second part of our series on contract management pitfalls, we look at the risks and opportunities presented by payment mechanisms in construction contracts.
The Government has resurrected its plans to cap the termination payments for exiting employees in the public sector.
Under most construction contracts, the contractor takes on the ground conditions risk. However, a recent case has demonstrated that the risk can fall on the employer.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.