Skip to main content

Insight article

April 19, 2019

Change in divorce law looks set to stop the blame game

No fault divorce is likely to be introduced, but professionals say fair deal on asset sharing means mediation must remain top of the agenda

The news that no-fault divorce is likely to become law has been welcomed. Still, while the legislation waits for its place in the parliamentary calendar, families must continue to deal with one party being ‘blamed’ for the breakup or wait for the change in the law.

And with the parliamentary calendar full of another divorce – the UK’s departure from the EU – no date has been given for debating the proposed changes.

Official statistics show that almost half of divorce petitions between 2016 and 2018 cited behaviour as the reason for ending the marriage rather than the required period of separation. However, while signalling the likely shift to a mutual agreement, the Ministry of Justice announcement sets out plans for a minimum six-month timeframe from making a petition until the final divorce so that couples have time for reflection before securing a divorce.

Professionals have welcomed the potential change in the law, saying it will help couples focus on less acrimonious negotiations when it comes to agreeing on arrangements for the children and/or a suitable financial settlement with each other.

Family lawyer Pippa Marshall said:

“The blame game can further inflame relations that are already strained by a breakdown, so this move is certainly one to be welcomed. Hopefully, it can further support the general shift towards a more conciliatory approach to separation, as there will always be a need for negotiation between couples.

We are dealing with increasingly complex financial and family arrangements, as many couples undertake second and subsequent marriages, often with children from previous relationships. It means that even in the most amicable of divorces, it’s to be expected that each side will wish to secure the best outcome in terms of asset sharing. Eliminating the additional upset of having to apportion blame for the marriage breaking down will probably increase the prospects of couples reaching agreements for their future arrangements.”

Under the existing Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, grounds for divorce require an applicant to prove their partner is at fault through adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour. Alternatively, and only if both sides agree, they can agree to wait two years before lodging their divorce petition. If no fault is given, and one party does not consent to the divorce, then the period of separation is extended to living apart for five years.

The proposed changes include:

  • the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage to be the sole ground;
  • the option of a joint application for divorce, alongside retaining the option for one party to initiate the process;
  • removing the ability to contest a divorce;
  • continuing to have a two-stage legal process, known currently as the decree nisi and decree absolute;
  • introducing a minimum timeframe of six months from the date of making the petition until final divorce, with 20 weeks from petition to decree nisi and six weeks from decree nisi to decree absolute.

Pippa Marshall has extensive experience practising family law. Call her today.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Can you make a WhatsApp will?
    Key legal requirements and future outlook.


    Read more
  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

Read more
Send this to a friend