header-logo header-logo

Owens: unreasonable behaviour on trial (Pt 2)

02 August 2018 / Simon Blain
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7804_blain

Unreliable evidence? Simon Blain reflects on the judgments & lessons of Owens v Owens

  • The Supreme Court can interpret the law, but only Parliament can change it. The case for reform is compelling and urgent.

Earlier in the summer, I looked at the background to the case of Owens , which was heard by the Supreme Court on 17 May 2018, and considered some of the arguments put forward on both sides (‘Owens: unreasonable behaviour on trial’, NLJ, 15 June 2018, p11). As noted then, Resolution, the representative body for family justice professionals, intervened in the proceedings, and the author is Treasurer of Resolution.

The Supreme Court’s judgment, handed down on 25 July 2018, contains much of interest to family lawyers ([2018] UKSC 41). However, it is perhaps as a window on early 21st century British society, and the divisions within it, that the case is of most interest.

The judgment(s)

As is becoming increasingly common, the Supreme Court handed down a majority judgment (given

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll