Owens v Owens - Supreme Court dismisses Appeal

I don't see what was so exceptional in this case (apart from the matter of them being well off enough to maintain two homes)!

If Mr Owens could succeed, many respondents faced with UB petitions, and who don't want a divorce, should consider whether their spouse has a strong enough case, or not.

It is exceptional in the sense that it is a very rare and unusual case; the circumstances of the marriage are probably not that uncommon. Few petitions are contested and, of those that are, a tiny number are successful; in 2016, of 113,996 petitions, answers were filed in 577 cases and fewer than 20 went to trial. Fewer than a fifth of respondents want to halt the divorce entirely; most are disputing particular allegations. The Owens case appears to be unique in recent years in arguing successfully against the granting of a divorce and in reaching the Supreme Court. There is no reason to suppose it will make it any more likely that future respondents will be successful - probably the reverse.

Forseti wrote:

There is no reason to suppose it will make it any more likely that future respondents will be successful - probably the reverse.

If the circumstances of the case are, as you say, not unusual then why would similar cases not follow the judgement in this one? Your view seems to be counter to all the other analysis out there. You go further and argue that this precedent is going to work in 'reverse' and we are more likely to see defences FAIL. I am unable to see your logic. Could you please explain?

To me it seems that all we need now is for more defendants to stand up and fight if they feel the UB petition is unfair. You say that 'fewer than 20 went to trial'. I've not seen the source of these stats - and I know there are a lot of spurious stats out there. If this is correct it is but a tip of the iceberg, I have no doubt. There must be thousands of other respondents who did not agree with the allegations and did not want a divorce but went along because they were put off by all the negative comments in Wikivorce and elsewhere around the chances of being able to successfully defend.

Hats off to Mr Owens.

In an earlier post you said:
Forseti wrote:

I think the case shows how important it is to start with a strong petition which will comply with the legislation (whatever we may think about it) and persuade the court that the marriage has broken down and that it is irretrievable.

The marriage breaking down is not sufficient grounds for a 'UB' petition. Too many petitioners have gotten away with that for too long.

No, I said the circumstances of the marriage were probably not uncommon but the circumstances of the case are obviously unique.

The stats come from the recent studies by Liz Trinder et al using 2016 data.

I may be wrong, but I doubt the case can stand as a precedent.

My view that it could act in reverse is based on the very strong campaign (not least amongst judges and lawyers) for 'no fault divorce' and the current proposal to deny respondents the right to defend. I would also thnk few judges would want to leave a petitioner in the position Mrs Owens is now in. Clearly that's a point of view, and there's no data yet to prove the case either way.

The general advice that defending a divorce is futile isn't affected by the Owens case.

many respondents faced with UB petitions, and who don't want a divorce, should consider whether their spouse has a strong enough case, or not.

It is up to the courts to decide if the statement of case demonstrates the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage - not the respondent.

rubytuesday wrote:

many respondents faced with UB petitions, and who don't want a divorce, should consider whether their spouse has a strong enough case, or not.

It is up to the courts to decide if the statement of case demonstrates the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage - not the respondent.

It's up to the respondent to decide whether they want to defend, and for that a good starting point is whether they think the petitioner has a strong case or not. A statement does not demonstrate anything except one party's view. It certainly does not demonstrate that a marriage has irretrievably broken down on the grounds of the respondent's behaviour. This line has been mindlessly repeated time and time again and seems to have become the accepted truth. It is wrong.

Also, a small correction - the court doesn't decide based on the statement of case. In a UB case the petitioner needs to *prove* their case, not simply submit a statement (unless the respondent decides not to contest)!

There seems to be a concerted effort from multiple fronts to dissuade respondents from defending. That is a disservice to respondents (the majority of whom, BTW, are male). Everyday sexism in divorce?

Forseti, thanks for replying. Of course the case can stand as a precedent. Why wouldn't it? It didn't come from a magistrate's court for crying out loud!

No, sorry, I don't understand your point. This may eventually lead to a campaign that in turn leads to a revision of divorce laws. But your claim was that this ruling 'probably' now makes it less likely that respondents will succeed in defending UB cases. I still do not see how. Maybe in the future IF the law is revised blah, blah. But now?

"The respondent to a divorce petition has the right to oppose it and to have the allegations made in the petition properly proved to the satisfaction of the court to the civil standard on the balance of probabilities..."

Butterworth v Butterworth [1998] 1 FCR 159

In Owens vs Owens the judge found that although the marriage had broken down, this was due to other factors, not the behaviour complained of. Ergo, no divorce.

So, unless a case is proceeding undefended, it falls on the Petitioner to prove their case to the satisfaction of the court. If they can't prove that the BEHAVIOUR was the cause of the marriage breaking down then it doesn't matter how irretrievably broken down the marriage is - the Petitioner is not entitled to a divorce.

The burden of proof rests with the Petitioner and it is a higher barrier than we are routinely led to believe by posts on this forum or utterances by the average family lawyer.