Hugh Owens does not consent to dissolving his marriage so Tini must return to court for the third time. No-fault divorce would cut conflict between couples, say family law experts

The strange case of Tini Owens, who cannot escape her loveless marriage, comes before the UK’s highest court on Thursday as pressure grows to legalise no-fault divorce.

Owens, 67, who lives in Worcestershire, has applied to overturn a ruling by the court of appeal that her union with her husband Hugh, 79, a retired mushroom farmer, has not broken down irretrievably despite her having an affair.

Hugh Owens has opposed his wife’s request to dissolve their 40-year marriage, denying claims that he made her feel unloved and regularly disparaged her to others. He says he does not want to divorce because they still have a “few years” left to enjoy.



Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in England and Wales, anyone seeking a divorce can prove their partner is at fault through adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour. Alternatively, if both sides agree, they can part after two years of separation.

But in the absence of consent or evidence of fault, applicants must wait until they have been living apart for five years. The Owens have only been living separate lives since 2015.

Tini Owens is locked into an unhappy marriage – this is why we need ‘no fault’ divorce Read more

Five supreme court judges, including the court president Lady Justice Hale, will consider whether Tini Owen’s allegations of mistreatment constitute sufficient grounds for finding that she cannot, as the law states, “reasonably be expected to live” with her husband. She has already failed to convince two lower courts that she deserves her freedom.



Resolution, the organisation which represents lawyers working in family law and supports the introduction of no-fault divorce, has been given permission to intervene in the hearing.

Their members will hold a rally outside parliament on Thursday morning, calling for a change to the law. In a survey of its members, Resolution said that 90% believe the current law makes it harder to reduce conflict and confrontation between clients and their ex-partners. Bringing in no-fault divorce, said 80% of Resolution’s members, would make it easier for separated couples to reach agreement out of court.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Hugh Owens says he and his wife still have ‘a few years’ left to enjoy. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

In 2016, more than half of all divorce petitions were submitted on the basis of adultery or unreasonable behaviour. Resolution believes the law forces separating couples to make more aggressive allegations against one another in order to secure a divorce.

Senior judges, including Lady Hale and the president of the high court’s family division, Sir James Munby, have voiced support for no-fault divorce.



Nigel Shepherd, a former chair of Resolution, said: “Our current laws can often create unnecessary conflict in divorce, forcing many couples to blame each other when there is no real need – other than a legal requirement – to do so. This conflict is detrimental to the couples themselves, and, crucially, any children they may have.”

Margaret Heathcote, the national chair, added: “There is no evidence that fault acts as a buffer to slow the divorce process, and the petition plays no part in determining other factors, such as financial arrangements or what happens to any children the couple may have. The current system is outdated, unfair, and unnecessary.”

Simon Beccle, Tini Owens’ solicitor and a partner at the law firm Payne Hicks Beach, said: “This appeal is not about the supreme court changing the law, nor indeed is it about the concept of no-fault divorce. Rather, it concerns the proper interpretation and application of [the unreasonable behaviour clause] of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973...

“Mrs Owens needs to satisfy the court that Mr Owens has behaved in such a way that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.”

Lawyers for Tini Owens will argue that the law is being misinterpreted by the courts and that she has already demonstrated the effect of her husband’s behaviour on her.

Divorce blame game leads to futile court battles, new study finds Read more

Beccle said: “If this important case is successful it is likely to mean that there is less need for one party to cite detailed and often unpleasant particulars of how the other has behaved, with the focus being instead on the effect the behaviour has had on the party seeking a divorce, regardless of whether it is objectively bad or otherwise blameworthy.”

Joanne Raisbeck, head of family law at Hill Dickinson, said: “This case is the only successfully defended divorce case in recent years and it highlights the urgency for divorce law reform in England. There are already many countries around the world including Australia, Spain and the USA that allow for couples to divorce without blame.”

Ayesha Vardag, who founded the family law firm Vardags, said: “Fault-based divorce ... is a throwback to the morality of the 1950s. It fails to acknowledge the reality of marriages breaking down, and engenders heartache instead of understanding.”







