Hamish Dunlop represents respondent in groundbreaking Owens v Owens divorce case

15th August 2017

Hamish Dunlop, Head of 3PB’s Family Law Group, led by Nigel Dyer QC, and instructed by Hughes Paddison of Cheltenham, has represented the respondent Hugh Owens in the groundbreaking Owens v Owens divorce case. The Court of Appeal earlier ruled that the appellant Tini Owens would not be granted a divorce despite an unhappy relationship. The Court refused to overturn the trial Judge’s finding that the respondent’s behaviour had been tantamount to ‘minor altercations of a kind to be expected in a marriage’. On 8th August 2017 leave was granted to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

The case brought Munby P to consider the history of divorce law and the continuing debate over no-fault divorce, leading Lady Justice Hallett to conclude: ‘It is for parliament to decide whether to amend section I and to introduce “no-fault” divorce on demand; it is not for the judges to usurp their function.’

Hamish Dunlop, ahead of the Supreme Court’s consideration, said: “Both the Trial Judge and the Court of Appeal properly applied the law in this case and their decisions cannot be criticised. If there is a desire to introduce an immediate no-fault divorce regime, it should be voiced through the ballot box and Parliament and not through our over-worked Court system.”

Hamish Dunlop also referred to the current project, chaired by Professor Liz Trinder, reporting on how the current fault-based divorce ground operates in practice and exploring possible reform. In May this year Professor Trinder confirmed that their research of 550 current and historic divorce files had failed to identify any case in which a petition had been rejected on substantive grounds.

Hamish Dunlop: “The Trinder research shows that the almost universal practice amongst the District Judges interviewed was simply to satisfy themselves that the basic ingredients of one of the five statutory grounds had been pleaded on the Petition. There was no investigation into whether the fact was true and/or whether the fact was causative of the breakdown.”

Professor Trinder reported in May that her research found, in cases where respondents did challenge allegations, there was a perception that the Court was endorsing the petitioner’s account without the benefit of hearing from the Respondent; and this generated a significant sense of injustice. As one respondent put it eloquently: “It doesn’t need to be true, it doesn’t need to be fair, it doesn’t need to be just, it doesn’t need to be anything that stands up to rigour. In which case, it serves no purpose other than in my case to cause upset. I would much prefer that she actually be forced to substantiate the claims.”

Click here to download Hamish Dunlop's Lecture Notes on this case.