header-logo header-logo

08 June 2017
Issue: 7749 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Family politics in 2017 manifestos

Conservative Party silent on no fault divorce & cohabitation rights

‘No-fault divorce’ received the backing of every main party apart from the Conservatives in the run-up to the General Election.

Neither ‘no-fault divorce’ nor greater rights for cohabiting couples is mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. As far as family law is concerned, its sole pledge is to bring forward a Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill in the next Parliament to consolidate civil and criminal protections and create an aggravated offence where behaviour is directed at a child.

In contrast, Labour, the Liberal-Democrats, Plaid Cymru and UKIP have all promised to introduce no-fault divorce.

Referring to the recent case of Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182, in which the Court of Appeal refused a divorce to a wife trapped in an unhappy marriage, Lib Dem justice spokesperson Lord Marks described current divorce law as ‘absurdly old-fashioned’ and ‘not fit for purpose’.

‘We need a no fault system where irretrievable breakdown of marriage is genuinely the only ground for divorce and no-one should have to prove unreasonable behaviour on the part of their spouse,’ he told NLJ.

UKIP justice spokesman, Peter Jewell, favoured no-fault divorce with a one-year time limit. Plaid Cymru justice spokesperson, Liz Saville Roberts said ‘no-fault divorce’ was ‘long overdue for introduction ’.

Meanwhile, the parties were less united on rights for cohabiting couples.

Last year, the Lib Dems put forward to Parliament the Cohabitation Rights Bill incorporating Law Commission proposals giving couples fair and reasonable redress upon relationship breakdown and intestacy. Lord Marks said the party would seek to reintroduce it in the next Parliament, and to continue to raise awareness of the issue.

Saville Roberts said Plaid Cymru would implement the Law Commission’s proposals and hold a further review in five years to consider the case for further extension of rights.

UKIP’s Peter Jewell, however, opposed greater rights for cohabitants on the basis of both freedom of choice and the problem of defining when and how legal rights would be triggered.

Both Labour and Conservative manifestos are silent on the issue.

Issue: 7749 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll