UK: Owens v Owens: Time For Divorce Law To Move Into The 21st Century?

Last Updated: 2 August 2018
Article by Justin Creed

Yesterday, Wednesday 25 July 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed Tini Owens' appeal in Owens v Owens, one of the most significant divorce cases to be heard in recent years.

Significant because its focus was on the interpretation of the meaning of 'unreasonable behaviour'– a phrase which does not actually appear in the legislation – as one of five grounds (and the most frequently cited) for proving a marriage has broken down irretrievably. It is extremely rare for divorce petitions to be defended, and even rarer for them to reach a final, contested hearing so Mrs Owens' pursuit of her case from the Family Court to the Supreme Court has enabled the principle of 'unreasonable behaviour' to be tested. The Supreme Court ruled, albeit very reluctantly, that Mrs Owens had not met the legal test and thus denied granting her a divorce. However, the judges admitted having 'uneasy feelings' about Mrs Owens' appeal and have invited "Parliament to consider replacing a law which denies Mrs Owens a divorce in the present circumstances".

Evidence that marriage broken down 'flimsy'

Mrs Owens filed for divorce in May 2015 citing 'unreasonable behaviour', and suffered the unusual experience of her husband deciding to defend the petition.  This meant that her allegations underpinning her charge of 'unreasonable behaviour' were tested in the Family Court under the terms of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the most recent legislation in this area. Although Judge Tolson in the Family Court acknowledged that the marriage had broken down, he refused to grant a divorce because Mrs Owens' evidence that her husband had behaved unreasonably was 'flimsy' at best and 'scraping the barrel' at worst. Mrs Owens' legal team put forward 27 examples of her husband's behaviour but Judge Tolson found, overall, that the incidents did not amount to much more than disagreements which might normally be expected to arise in a marriage of that length.

The Court had to decide whether or not Mr Owens' behaviour was such that made living with him impossible, relying on what a 'right thinking' person might feel on considering the allegations made. Overall, Judge Tolson found Mrs Owens' evidence 'hopeless' including her statement that her husband spent insufficient time with her and the family when they were growing up because he was concentrating on his career. He commented that the wealth Mr Owens' business had created had contributed to her comfortable lifestyle about which she did not complain. However, he went on to acknowledge that his decision left Mrs Owens in no-man's land because the reasons she did not want to continue living with her husband were down to causes not recognised by the law.

Appeal judges critical of existing law

Mrs Owens was given leave to appeal and there was a certain irony that the Appeal Court hearing into her divorce case was scheduled for 14 February 2017. Unfortunately for Mrs Owens, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous judgment – albeit with much criticism of the existing law. Lord Justice Munby noted that the Court was not there to try and find error 'by tortuous mental gymnastics' in the decision under review, and it was only interested in substance not semantics.  He went on to say that Appeal judges can only interfere in a decision which cannot be reasonably explained or justified. This was not the position in this case where they agreed that the wife had exaggerated the context and seriousness of the allegations and the resulting impact was modest. Therefore the Appeal Court upheld the decision of the Family Court albeit with a considerable 'lack of enthusiasm'. Lady Justice Hallatt made the point that the criticisms levelled at the husband would probably be tolerated within an otherwise happy marriage but would be intolerable within an unhappy one. Indeed, sitting in the Supreme Court, Lady Hale observed: "This was a case which depended upon the cumulative effect of a great many small incidents said to be indicative of authoritarian, demeaning and humiliating conduct over a period of time. Those who have never experienced such humiliation may find it difficult to understand how destructive such conduct can be of the trust and confidence which should exist in any marriage".

Unhappiness is no reason to divorce

The nub of the matter, acknowledged by the judges in each court, is the requirement for someone who wishes to divorce to cite one of five reasons: adultery, desertion, unreasonable behaviour, two years' separation with the consent of both parties, or five years' separation without consent. The law does not recognise unhappiness in a marriage as a reason to seek a divorce and, as it stands, only allows a judge to grant a divorce if, on the balance of probabilities "the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent". In turn, this can only be established by applying the objective test of what would a "hypothetical, reasonable observer make of the allegations"? In response, Mrs Owens argued that a subjective test of how her husband's cumulative behaviour impacted on her should be applied. The Court was sufficiently sympathetic to her argument that it allowed an appeal to the  Supreme Court – which found its hands similarly tied by legislation that, when put the test, was found wanting.

Time for change

All the judges involved in each stage of this case agreed that the law was inadequate as this marriage had quite clearly and irretrievably broken down but not in a way recognised by the law – and judges can only interpret the law made by Parliament. Almost all petitions are undefended as, generally speaking, once someone gets to the point of filing for divorce their spouse is aware that the marriage is over and accepts it as such. The anomaly in the law only comes to light if a petition is defended as in this case; a situation which extremely rare. Most petitions cite unreasonable behaviour and solicitors are encouraged by the Law Society and Resolution (which has supported Mrs Owens' appeal) to use relatively uncontentious examples, not least to avoid inflaming an already difficult situation, so Mrs Owens' legal team was following accepted practice. Of course, once the claims were tested, they were found to be too anodyne to stand detailed scrutiny. As the Appeal judges pointed out, the laws on which they have to base their decisions on are based on 'hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty'.

Parliament should heed Lady Hale's misgivings

As Lady Hale, sitting in the Supreme Court, commented: "It is not for us to change the law laid down by Parliament - our role is only to interpret and apply the law that Parliament has given us". Nonetheless she expressed serious misgivings about the way in which the original hearing was set up but was ultimately persuaded to join her fellow judges and dismiss Mrs Owens' appeal. There is no doubt that all the judges sitting in the three courts would have granted Mrs Owens' her divorce, had the legislation enabled them to do so. On this basis, this judgment should give Parliament pause for thought –the most common reason for proving that a marriage has irretrievably broken down, when examined in court, has shown that it is out of step with modern thinking.

Argument for no-fault divorce is strong

It just so happened that the day before the Appeal hearing, the Lords' spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice had replied in the negative to a question about whether or not Parliament intended to review the fault-based system of divorce, stating that there were no plans to change the current law but further reforms might be considered. Although this case is unlikely to encourage a sudden rush of contested cases (only 760 divorces were defended out of 113,996 petitions filed in the last 12 months), it might embolden some people to defend a divorce petition, particularly in the context of the financial implications of splitting up.  There is also the danger that solicitors might be persuaded to draft petitions in much more robust terms with the potential for making a divorce considerably more acrimonious than need be. The overall argument for reform is strong and the Supreme Court's commentary may be just the nudge that Parliament needs to carry out a root and branch review.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bircham Dyson Bell LLP
Withers LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bircham Dyson Bell LLP
Withers LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions