Report comment

Some reporting of this case indicates that there is something morally wrong about the outcome.

Legally it is the right decision and as the law is derived from morality how can it be argued that the outcome is the wrong one ? Well it could be said that times have changed and that something which was a good idea in 1973 isn’t such a good idea now.

It is difficult to see how the law could/should be changed to accommodate situations such as that in the Owens case. Are we suggesting that there should not be any hurdles and that marriage could be cancelled in the same way that one might cancel a direct debit ? Arguably not a good solution.

That leaves us with the option to reduce the size of (as opposed to removing) the hurdles so that the process is more achievable in appropriate cases.

If the law is to be amended perhaps “unreasonable conduct” could be clearly defined by way of exhaustive list one of which could be :-

“Unnecessarily opposing a divorce petition and causing your long-suffering wife to suffer financially and/or emotionally as a result”.