Report comment

We all know of people who become sensitised to noises or activities which can cause them acute pain and distress although of little consequence to others. No reasonable person would object to treatment to alleviate that condition. The problem with the present law is not the drafting, but the insistence of the judiciary on treating the unreasonableness as an objective criterium, when the drafting does not require it. Once this is to be looked at subjectively - a perfectly proper interpretation in my opinion - Mrs Mills gets her divorce. In other words, if a reasonable man would, given knowledge of the sensitivity, agree Mrs Mills could not continue to live with the behaviour to which she had become sensitised, then it is reasonable to agree that the marriage has irretrievable broken down. If in doubt, seek expert medical opinion, not rely on the personal judgement of those who have been lucky enough not to suffer that condition and can not know what it means.