Refused Divorce WTF

[DroningOn]

Tini Owens loses Supreme Court divorce fight - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856

Don't understand how a husband could hold his wife to an unhappy marriage when she wants a divorce so much she's willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Is it a divorce settlement issue or something?

I think it is quite clear.

She catalogued 27 incidents where she wasn't happy with him and how he acted. Most people can catalogue small incidents over several years. I would expect most to have over 27 in those years. My dp pissed me off twice this morning before 5am. I am not a happy monkey til I have my coffee. So if we ever married and divorced he could out 'bit miserable before she has woken up properly every day'

All after her affair. Which smacks of someone following the 'script', mners talk about so much and rewrite history. She made a point of keeping a diary, to prove his unreasonable behaviour but She didn't fulfil the legal requirement for unreasonable behaviour. The husband exercised his right to defend it.

She should have been made aware it was a possibility. The husbands words were 'I will never speak to you again when she told him of her first petition. He never said 'I won't defend it'

I don't feel anyone should just have to go along with a divorce if they feel it's lies.

I am married and, now, have a Dp. StbExh is threatening divorce on grounds of adultery. I would sign that, as technically it is adultery. I didn't start seeing do until months after we separated. But legally it's an affair. It's legally true, so I would be happy to sign it. Dp would be happy to be named as well

Stbexh was abusive. No way would accept a petition if he filed under unreasonable behaviour and then lied on it.

She likely was made aware that he could defend it. I'd be surprised if she wasn't, and she would definitely have grounds for complaint if that were the case. It's also true though that most unreasonable behaviour petitions aren't defended. Which includes a lot from respondents who initially swear blind they'll never agree. It would have been reasonable of her solicitor to discuss this with her too.

The reality is though, most family lawyers will have examples from practice of petitions without much meat in them being granted. Yes, that can often include people using examples of the sort of behaviour you display at 5am pre-coffee. You don't have to think this is a sensible state of affairs to accept that it did indeed exist.

I presume all those who think she should be granted the divorce would be happy for their landlord or employer to unilaterally alter their contracts?

So she should have been made aware it would possibly fail if he defended it as it didn't meet the legal definition.

She either wasn't explained this properly so she understood the consequences or chose to ignore it.

If legal reps are not required to point out that while it's the done thing, failure to meet the legal requirement could result in it not being allowed, then they are misleading people.

Then she went into appeal despite it being clear she did not meet the legal requirement. So either her legal team said 'Yeah do it' or they said 'You probably won't win' and she did it anyway.

Again, note she came up with 27 small things he did. All after her affair. If a man did this, people would be willing to believe it was all lies so he could claim to be the victim rather than be seen as cheater.

She either wasn't explained this properly so she understood the consequences or chose to ignore it.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. It's always possible to defend a divorce that isn't on the grounds of 5 years separation. But the large majority of divorces aren't petitioned for or granted on those grounds. A person petitioning for divorce on something other than 5 years separation isn't doing something problematic. It's a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do, and it's much more likely than not that they'll get what they want.

Like you I do wonder what the motivation for the appeals was though. Perhaps she wanted to be a test case? Not unknown. One doesn't have to agree with her version of events to feel our divorce laws need a rethink. Sometimes losing in a blaze of publicity is a good way to try and effect change.

She knew what the law was before she started so it's weird that she's making a massive deal out if it instead of following the legal advice she will undoubtedly have been given, that would have taken her down a different path. Looks like massive attention seeking to me.

Also if you read the story was found to have made a number of false/unsubstantiated accusations against him. I think most of us would be reluctant to make life easy for someone who had done that, really if their life was made loads less convenient by lying about you when they could have gone another way, well that's pretty much gravy isn't it?

You might be surprised how often people who've been treated badly/feel they've been treated badly accept their ex petitioning on the basis of their unreasonable behaviour. If you just want rid of someone, you might well take the path of least resistance. Note that the large majority of divorces aren't defended and that people can state they don't agree with the account in the petition but don't intend to defend it. We've heard a lot about her legal advice, I'd be interested to know more about his. Most solicitors would take the view that it's generally better not to defend a divorce.

"So either her legal team said 'Yeah do it' or they said 'You probably won't win' and she did it anyway. "

I doubt they said either of those things. I've dealt with loads of lawyers and the biggest problem one ever has with them is that they never give you a clear steer, or definitive advice. They say this could happen, or this, or this, this maybe more likely than this , but that could happen - and YOU have to decide based on the risks they explain.

I work in HR and my job is the same. Managers say 'but will it go to tribunal?' and I have to say it depends on many factors, 'well, if it does go, will it win?', no idea, depends on loads of things, this and this and this, and that and how the judge is feeling and what they had for breakfast......

I can't imagine for one minute that any lawyer she was using didn't tell her all the risks. She knew her husband best, she knew better than they did how he would react. And she chose to appeal, and appeal again - no-one can have forced her to do that.

Anyway, she's only got to wait about 18m now.

I agree divorce laws need reform. But I also think people should try and understand it better before they get married (never married myself, never seemed like a very good idea really)

MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni

I mean no one explained the consquences of a poor petition and what would happen if he defended it.

Just because MOST accept a petition doesn't mean ALL will and if legal teams are overlooking that, they need to stop doing. She should have been made aware of what would happen IF he decided to defend.

She had a poor case and hoped it would go through anyway. The gamble did not pay off. She should have been aware it was a gamble. If she was made aware it was a gamble and decides to roll the dice anyway, that's her mistake.

I agree with LeahJack. Yeah, he might be an abusive arsehole. Or, she might be and he feels under no obligation to lift a little finger any more to give her what she wants. She doesn't have to live with him. She never has to see him again if she doesn't want to.

And she chose to appeal, and appeal again - no-one can have forced her to do that.

Which my point. Her legal team either advised her incorrectly (Possibly due other not giving all the information) or she chose to crack on anyway.

Every solicitor I have know has never given definitive advice. But they have tried to steer in the best direction.

"I mean no one explained the consquences of a poor petition and what would happen if he defended it."

Whatever way they advised her, she was always the one who chose what to do. I don't know why you're so keen to say her solicitors/counsel were wrong, you have no evidence of this.

Sometimes you take a risk and it doesn't play out how you hoped. That's just life. I guess it's the same getting married at all. No guarantees!

My sister's solicitor has been the opposite, practically telling her to just roll over and agree to everything ex says. Luckily, she's got me!

Whateverway they advised her, she was always the one who chose what to do. I don't know why you're so keen to say her solicitors/counsel were wrong, you have no evidence of this.

I haven't said this. I have said either she had poor legal advice or she made poor decisions. I personally believe she made poor decisions or didn't give her team the full info.

I said this quite a while ago and I have been answering people who have posted to say that she could have had good legal advice and made reasonable decisions.

I think this woman has ended up in this situation, down to a lot of her own behaviour.

Not her own behaviour, I meant decisions.

I have said a few times, that she gambled and it didn't pay off.

The actual judgment is hilarious actually!

This paragraph of the SC judgment is interesting in terms of how rare contested divorces are. It's easy to see how neither Mrs Owens nor her solicitors expected this to happen. The court also says, earlier in the judgment, that to say the petition "lacked beef" should have been a compliment, not a criticism.

15. The answer to this question is not in dispute. It lies in an understanding of the practical operation of the family court nowadays when determining a defended suit for divorce. Defended suits are exceedingly rare. In his judgment the President noted that, in relation to the 114,000 petitions for divorce which were filed in England and Wales in 2016, fewer than 800 answers were filed; and he estimated that the number of suits which proceeded to a final, contested hearing was 0.015% of the petitions filed, which amounts to about 17 in that whole year. The degree of conflict between the parties which is evident in a fully defended suit will of itself suggest to the family court that in all likelihood their marriage has broken down. While it recognises that, unless and until repealed by Parliament, section 1 of the 1973 Act must conscientiously be applied, the family court takes no satisfaction when obliged to rule that a marriage which has broken down must nevertheless continue in being.

@VanGoghsDog Mr Owens was told in a previous court hearing by a judge to do the honourable thing.

@ShortStuff08 the Resolution, Solicitors Family Law Association, were involved in the case - www.resolution.org.uk/news-list.asp?page_id=228&n_id=345
So it looks like she was a deliberate test case to get divorce laws reformed. There is a bill going through but due to Brexit and the parliamentary recess it hasn't had the required number of readings.

So it looks like she was a deliberate test case to get divorce laws reformed.

With her consent? I said that was a possibility several pages back.

If she wishes her case to be a test case then she knew what could happen.

@Shortstuff08

Maybe with both their consent?

But, either way, whether she knew it was a 'test' case or not,m she knew what could happen. You'd have to be some kind of idiot to not know a case can go against you, everyone knows that.

The appeals did seem to hinge on an interpretation of a very small part of the legislation and the court would appear to be asking parliament for reform.

I do think there needs to be reform, but I think it should be dealt with carefully so that it does not preclude getting a financial arrangement that works for everyone.

I mean no one explained the consquences of a poor petition and what would happen if he defended it.

This is kind of again the assumption that it was a poor petition. It wasn't necessarily. You also don't know whether it was explained to her that he might defend it, although the large majority of people don't, but that had to be balanced against the risk of a more aggressive petition making him more likely to defend. Do remember that if the petition had more obviously spelled out unreasonable behaviour, and he'd defended it and lost, he could still have appealed too.

Basically, people need to stop assuming that she, the lawyers or both were at fault. They might not have been. The judgement is very instructive here. There is a reason Lady Hale is throwing judicial shade.

Maybe she wasn’t misguided or given bad advice. Maybe she was desperate and appealed twice on purpose, in order to show how ridiculous current divorce laws are and how badly they need reforming? If that was the case, her plan has worked out.

Her husband strikes me as a nasty, controlling piece of work, refusing her the divorce out of spite. He said they ‘could still enjoy a few married years together’ or something along those lines, FFS! Has nobody told him that his wife has left him, moved out, and is obviously not enjoying being married to him?

True, she’ll be entitled to a divorce after 5 years’ separation even if he doesn’t agree to it - but five years is a long time to wait, especially if you’re in your late sixties.

I wish her all the best and hope that all her trouble hasn’t been for nothing.

Why do people care about the official reason for divorce? If my husband divorces me because of 'unreasonable behaviour' and I disagree with him but agree to a divorce, why does the reason matter? It's not something that is held against your name, or is it???

Most people don't, is the answer. Or they care less about the petition than they do about being able to move on, at least. That's why so few divorces are contested. It's also possible to say you don't agree with the contents of the petition but won't contest it, so sometimes people do that.

It's also possible to say you don't agree with the contents of the petition but won't contest it

My ex did this. I know for a fact that everything I stated in my reasons was factual, and so did he. But he kicked off becuase he didnt want his abuse to be against his name. In order to speed it up my solicitor retracted the claims he didnt like and I was (happily) divorced in 4 months and two weeks.