Summer 2017 In Family Law: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

There have been a number of important developments in family law this summer, not as might be expected, on a straight trajectory but rather less predictably, as well moving forwards also looking to the past.

Owens v Owens is the case in which 27 particulars of unreasonable behavior were successfully refuted by the husband in cross examination leading to the wife's petition being dismissed and the parties being forced to remain married. A scenario most thought consigned to history. The Court of Appeal found no grounds to justify overturning the trial judge's decision and the wife has now been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The umbrella body for family lawyers, Resolution has applied to intervene in the case which will consider whether the Courts current approach to unreasonable behavior particulars is wrong. Alongside this Resolution are also continuing to campaign for no fault divorce. Click here for our recent blog on the case.

Mills v Mills concerns cross applications by former spouses for variation of maintenance payable by the husband to the wife. When the parties separated in 2002, the wife received the greater proportion of the parties' capital and maintenance of £1100 per calendar month. Some 15 years later, the husband argued she is now in a position to earn more and her maintenance should be decreased and capitalized (paid off with a lump sum). However in the intervening period the wife, through purchasing a series of increasingly expensive properties had diminished her capital and is now living in rented accommodation with the parties' son. She argued that her maintenance should be increased.

At trial the Judge decided that the status quo should remain. However, the Court of Appeal (in a decision which has been called a backwards step away from recent jurisprudence encouraging independence after divorce) increased the wife's maintenance by £300 per month to meet her 'needs', which included accommodation. The Supreme Court will consider whether it is appropriate for maintenance to be increased to cover 'needs' that have already been met in a previous capital award.

Another case that caught my attention this week was the returning case of Green v Adams. I have blogged on this case before ( read it here)...