Woman refused divorce will tell Supreme Court she should not have to prove ‘unreasonable’ behaviour

woman refused a divorce from her millionaire husband will argue that she should not have to prove “unreasonable” behaviour as she takes her fight to the Supreme Court.

The Judge added: “Parliament has decreed that it is not a ground for divorce that you find yourself in a wretchedly unhappy marriage, though some people may say it should be.”

Mrs Owens’s legal team revealed that in taking the case to the Supreme Court, they would argue that the previous emphasis on trying to find that Mr Owens’ behaviour was “in some way ‘unreasonable’” was wrong.

There is only one ground for divorce, that is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This is a clear a subjective and objective test. The Court cannot hold that the marriage has irretrievably broken down unless the petitioner satisfies the Court of one of one or more of the five facts:

  1. Adultery
  2. Unreasonable behaviour
  3. Desertion
  4. Separation for two years (agreed separation)
  5. Separation for five years (separation not agreed)

Tini Owen’s divorce petition has been rejected by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Judge ruled that that her husband’s constant berating about her infidelity (affair she had several years ago) was to be “expected in a marriage”; and, that the marriage had not, in law, irretrievably broken down.

No date has yet been fixed for the Supreme Court hearing.