Owens v Owens
Under the old law, a wife who could not prove that her husband's behaviour was such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him was refused a divorce, which led to the introduction of no fault divorce.
Facts
Mrs Owens had been married for 40 years. She petitioned for divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, under section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. She relied on a number of incidents, which the judge described as minor altercations of a kind to be expected in a marriage. Mr Owens defended the petition. The judge refused the divorce, and the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court dismissed Mrs Owens's appeal, with reluctance. Lord Wilson said that the court had to apply the law as Parliament had enacted it, and that the question was whether, taking into account the cumulative effect of the husband's behaviour on this particular wife, she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The judge had been entitled to find that this was not shown. The result was that Mrs Owens would have to remain married until she could rely on five years' separation. The court invited Parliament to consider reforming the law, and the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 introduced no fault divorce from April 2022.
Related cases on marriage, nullity and divorce
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Buffery v Buffery [1988] 2 FLR 365
- 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
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.
