Owens v Owens Supreme Court Divorce Case

[thousandpapercranes]

Tini Owens has lost her case and will be forced to remain married to her husband. How is that even possible? Mind boggles.

I think she can separate from him (I think they already live apart? not sure of that) but divorce currently requires separation for 7 years if there's 'no fault', ie. unhappiness is real, but unreasonable behaviour on one side or the other has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court.

But yes, on the face of it, it sounds unbelievable, but I googled a bit and it makes a bit more sense.

Yes the mind boggles.

If he won’t sign the papers then she has to wait 5 years for a ‘no fault’ divorce.

It sounds really controversial but isn’t, when you look at the law as it stands.

Though quite why the length of time to wait for a no fault divorce is so long should be looked at.

Highly likely to be massively abused by controlling arseholes of both sexes.

www.andersonrowntree.co.uk/journal/owens-v-owens-time-reform-divorce-law

It’s so arbitrary though -

“She applied to the family court for a divorce, citing some 27 allegations about the way Mr Owens treated her. This included his 'continued beratement' of her which, she said, amounted to unreasonable behaviour, that he was "insensitive" in his "manner and tone" and that she was "constantly mistrusted" and felt unloved.”

Sounds pretty unreasonable to me.

Idiot judge said that this sounded like a normal marriage - must have been paid off :

“In a family court ruling made last year Judge Robin Toulson QC refused to grant a divorce petition on the basis her allegations, saying that they were "minor altercations of the kind to be expected in marriage"

So the husband now has a lot more time at his disposal to hide assets.

UK marriage laws are just plain wrong. Scrap them.

No fault divorce is 5 years. She lives next door to him, poor woman. Divorce law is so archaic the whole system needs a complete overhaul. You should be able to divorce without fault within12 months.

So the husband now has a lot more time at his disposal to hide assets.

That did cross my mind too. He does seem somewhat difficult, I mean why would anyone insist on remaining married to someone who no longer wished to be married?! And the fact that the case has gone all the way to the supreme court would demonstrate her wish to end it.

I can't imagine Tolson has made himself any new friends on the bench with his idiotic decision. Hopefully, he will proceed no higher up the judiciary.

But really, you have the Daily bloody Mail to thank for our stupid divorce law, as politicians are too scared to reform it.

Well she had an affair and then moved out. Wants a divorce quickly but doesn't want to take the 'blame' because she'll get less assets. The husband is clearly doing this to stick the knife in, which is terrible but neither of then have behaved well in this which is why we are where we are.

I really don't think this is the poster case for either no fault divorces or female liberation that it is being painted in the press.

Wants a divorce quickly but doesn't want to take the 'blame' because she'll get less assets.

Who did what does not affect asset division.

For higher asset cases (he is a millionaire) it can very much be part of demonstrating the presence of a subsisting marriage that has been used to gain higher settlements in recent cases. For most people it doesn't matter but for the rich there are different rules.

If one party wants out I can't see the point in either the other party or the courts preventing a divorce. How does the refusing party gain?

Why doesn't she put herself forward as the reason / blame for the divorce? Then it can be done now.
Why would you care what was written on the divorce papers or can he refuse her reason for divorce ?

Because our fault based system requires that the petitioner relies on the fault of the other party.

You can't divorce someone on the grounds of your own adultery or unreasonable behaviour, only theirs. There is a right to defend a divorce petition but this is rarely wise

MrsBertBibby - exactly. In most cases the divorce petition would have proceeded and it would have amounted to unreasonable behavior. She was super unlucky that it came before that judge in first instance. Appeal judges can’t just substitute their views for the original judge’s.

Hopefully in future the UK allows the no blame/irreconcilable differences for divorce. Some marriages just fizzle out without either party being at fault.

The Supreme Court certainly can disagree with a high court judge and so can an appeal court judge! Otherwise what would be the point of having these courts?

Tolson applied the law. He didn’t look at enough of her complaints about her husband’s behaviour but his decision was correct and the Supreme Court had to agree with it as the law stands. They apply the law, not opinions. 5 years is too long and this is what needs to be reduced.

Don’t forget we have divorce law which has been formed by public opinion and the churches over many decades. Church leaders have been very outspoken about marriage and staying together so governments have not changed this aspect of divorce law for a long time. Public opinion has now shifted so hopefully there will be a change now to update it.

Yup, not surprised it was Tolson.

The Supreme Court certainly can disagree with a high court judge and so can an appeal court judge! Otherwise what would be the point of having these courts?

The point made is that appellate courts can rarely justify overturning the findings of fact made by the trial judge, because the trial judge heard the evidence, and the appeal court did not.

So unless there is some procedural impropriety, in which case you might get a fresh trial, the appeal court is left with asking whether the law was correctly applied to the facts as determined.

She has already separated for a couple of years, and they could divorce already, if he consented, As he does not, they have to go to the full 5 years.

I assume that she was using the separation route, because she was advised that she did not have an 'unreasonable behaviour' case at the outset, and she still does not have one now.

I don't know why there is a different period for separation with/without consent, does anyone know how it came about in the first place?

Lady Hale's judgment suggested that the preferred option would have been a retrial (enabling the facts to be considered afresh), but that the wife's lawyers had been clear that she couldn't bear to go through it all again, potentially for the same result. Poor woman, I don't blame her for that, especially since by the time the fresh hearing came up she'd be within a year of being able to divorce on grounds of five years' separation.