"...but they highlight the inadequacy of the law as part of that ruling."
Something similar happened with divorce. Up until 2022 there was no such thing as a "no fault" divorce. The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 came into effect on 25 June 2022.
Before 2022 anyone wanting to get divorced (other than separating for five years) had to give reasons as to why and show why they could not live with their spouse. It also got rid of all the old terms like "decree nisi" and "decree absolute" etc
This was prompted by a fascinating divorce case (Owens v Owens) that, likewise, went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Mr & Mrs Owens married in 1978 and Mrs Owens then filed for divorce in 2015 (she was 65 and he was 77).
Quite unusually, Mr Owens decided to defend the case. The judge at first instance held that there was not sufficient evidence to grant a divorce and so it went to the Court of Appeal.
It is plain from his judgment that Judge Tolson was unimpressed by the wife’s petition. He variously described it as “hopeless” (judgment, paragraph 2), “anodyne” (paragraph 7), and “scraping the barrel”...
This was heard by Sir James Munby (then President of the Family Division), Lady Justice Hallet and Lady Justice Macur.
The court reviewed the authorities and came to the same decision. They said that their hands were tied.
At para [2] the question was explicitly asked:
"If, for whatever reasons, we find ourselves unable to interfere, the question inevitably arises whether, in 2017, the law is in a remotely satisfactory condition?"
.
At para [38]
"This is the law. This is the law which it was the duty of Judge Tolson to apply. It is the law which it is equally our duty to apply. It is well known that many hold the view that this is not what the law should be, that times have moved on since 1969, and that the law is badly out-of-date, indeed antediluvian. That may be, and those who hold such views may be right, but our judicial duty is clear. As Sir Gorell Barnes P said in Dodd v Dodd [1906] P 189, 206, our task is jus dicere non jus dare – to state the law, not to make the law."
However, he did go on to say that it is the duty of the court to look at matters from the perspective of the current day and not of the past (even citing the man on the Clapham omnibus). He gave several examples eg
"The concept of cruelty is the same today as it was when the Bill of Rights 1688 forbade the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments”. But changes in social standards mean that punishments which would not have been regarded as cruel in 1688 will be so regarded today."
and
"The most obvious application of the principle in family law relates to the concept of a child’s “welfare”, as the word was used in section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, now section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The concept of welfare is, no doubt, the same today as it was in 1925, but ... the content of the concept, ... have changed and continue to change. A child’s welfare is to be judged today by the standards of reasonable men and women in 2017 – not by the standards of their grandparents in 1925 or their parents in 1969 ... and having regard to the ever changing nature of our world, in particular, changes in social attitudes"
He then went on to discuss the history of divorce and an interesting history of the "hotel divorce" (yes, this is all in the judgment). But at the end of all that could not overturn the original decision.
Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182
The case then ended up at the Supreme Court. But here again, the Court said that it could not interfere despite the changes in attitudes in society. But ended with the sentence:
"Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances."
Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41
Then, two years later in 2020, a new Act was passed which eventually came in to force in 2022 making this happen.