The latest UK divorce statistics show that a marriage ending in divorce has, on average, lasted 11.7 years. This has given rise to a new term: the “11-year itch”.

So why get married? Because it is still seen as the right thing to do? Because it legitimises children? Because it gives out a strong image of stability?

Why 11 years? Is it because this is the average length of time it takes to become established in a marriage, to have children, for those children to reach school age and for the marriage to go stale?

This could be one explanation – and yet the number of people who are aged 60 or over when they divorce – so-called silver divorce – has also increased. I think it shows a growing attitude in society towards marriage as something that is disposable when it just doesn’t fit anymore. People live longer and life doesn’t necessarily begin at 40 or 50 or even 60. It begins when you, as an individual, make a decision that is about you and how you live your life.

Since 2000 and the case of White v White the courts have been viewing marriage as a business partnership like any other. Think about it this way: Continue reading »

 A recent headline in The Daily Mail read: Husband who became a millionaire AFTER divorce not obliged to give ex wife more money, judges rule. This was the Walkden case, heard in the Court of Appeal, which was described by one of the barristers involved as “the flip side of the decision of this court in Myerson v Myerson“. I don’t agree with that description.

Newspapers reported that the judgment in this case was academic, because the parties had already reached a further financial compromise before the ruling in the Court of Appeal was made. In fact, I believe the judgment has important implications for all parties and their lawyers. This is because the safety net to set aside court orders has all but been removed. Although it is not my practice to comment publicly on my clients’ cases, I intend to make an exception referring only to facts which are in the public domain. I would stress that the advice and client examples I give thereafter are not connected with that case.

Continue reading »

In Lady Worsley’s time, divorce was a privilege of the wealthy.

I recently came across an interesting article in the BBC History Magazine about an infamous 18^th Century divorce. It brought to mind the recent news about the lady in Dubai who has been imprisoned for committing adultery and may never see her children again once she is deported from that country, I wondered to what extent progress has been made.

The case in question concerned Sir Richard Worsley and his wife, Lady Seymour Dorothy Worsley. The year was 1781 and Lady Worsley had eloped with her lover Captain George Bisset, leaving for the big smoke and staying at the Royal Hotel on Pall Mall. The affair, colourfully described in Hallie Rubenhold’s book Lady Worsley’s Whim, led to her husband’s instigation divorce proceedings.

Back in the 18^th Century, divorce was a privilege of the wealthy, as it was only the wealthy who could afford the expense. Proceedings could only be brought by the husband. He could obtain a divorce through an Act of Parliament, which was an embarrassing rummage through the history of the marriage by his peers (imagine the scandal and gossip!) who would then agree that the marriage should be dissolved. An alternative option was to go to the religious ecclesiastical court to obtain a “separation from bed and board”, which ended the husband’s financial responsibilities towards his wife but left the couple in a “half-life” of still being married.

Sir Richard Worsley made an intriguing claim that related to a charge of “criminal conversation”. The charge was brought by Sir Richard against Captain Bisset for compensation, for damages to Sir Richard’s property. The “property” in question? His wife.

The religious laws against adultery – and perhaps these are still echoed in the law of Dubai – had been relaxed in the late 17^th Century. This meant that other ways of seeking recompense could be sought. Sir Richard also alleged that Captain Bisset had committed the civil offence of trespass and damaged his wife’s chastity. He sought £20,000 in damages – the equivalent of £25.4 million today.

Continue reading »

I am always bemused when newspapers claim that the start of the New Year is the busiest time of year for divorce lawyers. Sitting at my desk today, utterly exhausted, I would beg to disagree. In last week’s run up to the holidays, a client flew in from the Channel Isles to see me, I was in London then on to Exeter in Devon, I had a 300 mile car journey back to Leeds, then to Hale in Cheshire for an entire day and back to Leeds for a 6.30am start appearing on the radio. Of the other lawyers in the office, Chris McVay was in court in Newcastle, Julian Hawkhead in the High Court in London, Frank Arndt was in court in Leeds, Judith Routledge was in court in York, Stephen Hopwood in court in Harrogate. Everyone I see who is still left in the office, is breathlessly rushing around, and has hardly any time to count down the hours to a well-earned break.

So do I think New Year will bring an immediate divorce for couples whose relationship is going through a bad patch?

I don’t think so.

Continue reading »

I have been profiled in the latest issue of Yorkshire Today magazine.

The full interview is after the jump.

Continue reading »