Filing for Divorce: no one-size fits all solution
The Family Division of the High Court has handed down a severe (if reluctant) judgment providing a salutary lesson to those who may be tempted by ‘McDonalds’ divorce options. The court realised that individuals who had been advised by a company called iDivorces, had submitted 28 identical divorce applications. Mr Justice Moor presiding, provided a careful summary of the relevant law before moving to dismiss the individuals’ divorce applications and inviting them all to submit fresh paperwork using a bit more thought.
What was the Problem?
As the law stands today, anyone hoping to obtain a divorce must demonstrate to the court that their marriage has broken down irretrievably. This must be done in one of 5 ways. To avoid a scenario in which their spouse’s consent is required, most petitioners choose the option of ‘unreasonable behaviour’. Applicants are then forced to write a brief description of that behaviour.
Many dysfunctional relationship dynamics can be broken down into broad categories of behaviour, but the company was deemed to have taken that a step too far when it provided the below summary to clients, encouraging them simply to correct as appropriate.
"For about a year prior to the separation the respondent would become moody without justification and argumentative towards the petitioner. He/she would behave in this way on at least a couple of days every week, which would cause a lot of tension within the home thereby making the petitioner's life very uncomfortable. During the same period the respondent would also often ignore the petitioner and decline to communicate with him. He/she would also behave in this way on about two days every week, which would also cause a lot of tension within the home and make the petitioner's life very difficult. The respondent showed no interest in leading the life of a married woman/man for about a year before the separation. For example, he/she would go out socially on his/her own and basically exclude the petitioner from his/her life thereby making him/her feel very dejected."
Many of us may recognise elements of our own personal relationships in the above description and the Court noted that ordinarily the above description would indeed justify granting a divorce. The solicitors here at Jones Nickolds are proud members of Resolution – an industry body founded on principles of taking the hostility out of divorce. It is a widely-practised tenet of Resolution that descriptions of unreasonable behaviour should go far enough to cross the legal threshold for divorce (but no further). While the above paragraph could be seen as an extension of that principle, Mr Justice Moor aptly summed up the problem:
“It is, however, quite impossible for all twenty-eight respondents to have behaved in exactly that way.
…
“If I needed to give an example, it would be to say that it would incredible if all twenty eight respondents ignored the twenty eight petitioners and declined to communicate with them on about two days per week.”
What Happened
The Court declined to refer iDivorces to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but made it clear that it would not hesitate to do so if the situation continued. More concerningly, the 28 individuals’ applications were rejected and they will now be forced to apply again, along with all the additional emotional and financial cost that will entail.
Conclusion
With the introduction of ‘No-Fault’ Divorce anticipated by April 2022, it will soon no longer be necessary to justify an application for divorce in the same way. While the direct impact of this judgment is therefore limited, it does remind us of the value of taking proper legal advice at the earliest stage of proceedings to ensure that we avoid the pitfalls associated with obtaining generic information – whether that is from a generalist provider, from a friend, or even online.
A copy of the judgement can be found here.