Buffery v Buffery
Under the old law, the fact that spouses had grown apart and had nothing in common did not show that one had behaved in such a way that the other could not reasonably be expected to live with him.
Facts
Mrs Buffery petitioned for divorce after about 20 years of marriage, on the ground that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. She said that he was insensitive, did not take her out, and that they had grown apart and had nothing to talk about. The judge found that the marriage had broken down, but that the husband's behaviour was not such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal of a divorce. May LJ said that it was not enough for the wife to show that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, or that the parties had grown apart, but she had to prove that the breakdown was caused by behaviour on the husband's part such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. There was no such behaviour. The case was cited in Owens v Owens, and the need to prove fault was removed by the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.
Related cases on marriage, nullity and divorce
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83
- Gereis v Yagoub [1997] 1 FLR 854
- Her Majesty's Attorney General v Akhter and Khan [2020] EWCA Civ 122, [2021] Fam 277
- Hirani v Hirani (1983) 4 FLR 232
- Hudson v Leigh [2009] EWHC 1306 (Fam), [2009] 2 FLR 1129
- Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130
- KC and NNC v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department [2008] EWCA Civ 198, [2009] Fam 11
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
