Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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