Family (Divorce And Dissolution)

Front 1

Putting Asunder

Back 1

First report recommending irretrievable breakdown rather than retention of matrimonial offences

Front 2

Reform of the Grounds of Divorce - The Field of Choice

Back 2

Implemented irretrievable breakdown on basis of one of five facts

Front 3

S 11 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

Back 3

Facts for irretrievable breakdown extended to same sex couples

Front 4

Buffery v Buffery

Back 4

Demonstrating irretrievable breakdown and basing it on one of facts are two separate questions, no requirement that fact relied upon caused irretrievable breakdown

Front 5

Butterworth v Butterworth

Back 5

Divorce petition has certain due process implications: respondent entitled to defend + know allegation, petitioner must satisfy truth of allegation to court

Front 6

Bhaji

Back 6

Divorce will not be allowed if false/fraudulent facts used, or on factors contrived between parties

Front 7

Dennis v Dennis

Back 7

Adultery only applies to heterosexual relationships

Front 8

Cleary v Cleary

Back 8

Intolerability does not have to be caused by adultery, wife had affair but they 'tried again', still intolerable

Front 9

Livingstone Stallard

Back 9

Original test was whether any right-thinking member of public would conclude that respondent acted in way that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them

Front 10

May LJ, Buffery

Back 10

'The gravity of the conduct complained of is itself immaterial'

Front 11

Lord Wilson, Owens v Owens: (a) what respondent did, (b) effect behaviour had on petitioner in light of their personality/disposition/circumstances, (c) make evaluation whether petitioner continuing to live with respondent would be unreasonable

Back 11

Modern test for behaviour

Front 12

Katz

Back 12

Mentally ill husband, not to blame but still behaviour

Front 13

Thurlow

Back 13

Terminally ill wife, hard burden to prove this is behaviour

Front 14

Quoraishi

Back 14

Not desertion where there is just cause, wife left after husband had second polygamous marriage

Front 15

Le Brocq

Back 15

Communal activities negative separation, wife continued to cook for both parties

Front 16

Mouncer

Back 16

Separate bedrooms but shared meals, shared domestic chores, did it for children but court needed cleaner division

Front 17

Fuller

Back 17

Wife moved in with new partner but allowed supposedly terminally ill husband to live with them so she could care for him, paid rent so exception to general rule

Front 18

Santos

Back 18

Parties had always lived apart so difficult to determine when they had started living apart, court took more holistic approach focussing on mind of petitioner as to whether they regarded marriage as subsisting

Front 19

S 5 MCA

Back 19

Grave financial hardship defence

Front 20

Le Marchant

Back 20

Hardship must arise from divorce, not breakdown

Front 21

S 44(1) Civil Partnerships Act 2004

Back 21

Civil partnership equivalent of divorce