Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

From our own co-respondents

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : from-our-own-co-respondents
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 29, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 84911

Sue Jenkinson, PhD graduand and Penny Booth, Reader in Law, Staffordshire University Law School. The co-respondent is a shady character who was drawn into divorce proceedings historically for financial reasons: the cuckolded husband would sue him for damages for seducing his virtuous wife , unless she was proven to be worthless (in which case the husband left with nothing). The co-respondent's role was formalised by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and a successful divorce almost entirely relied on a co-respondent being present. The issue of damages did not become obsolete until 1970. Despite social change and changes in the law the co-respondent remains a central feature of divorce proceedings where adultery is the ground for the petition, often fuelling acrimony where it would be more helpful to minimise the already difficult conflict and focus on the resolution of financial and family issues. Does the natural desire to attribute fault (and seek revenge) outweigh the common sense approach to concluding divorce proceedings, keeping the co-respondent in the picture at all costs? In light of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the provision for civil partnerships to be dissolved without a special category of adultery, the specific retention of this ground today for the heterosexual couple requires further thought. For the full article see June [2007] Fam Law.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from