We remain open for new business. We are offering virtual consultations for anyone needing family law or divorce advice during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. To arrange your consultation, call us and we will book in an appointment at a time to suit you. For COVID-19 specific guidance, click here. Stay safe.

Mrs Owens loses Supreme Court appeal and must remain married for the time being

Divorce|Family Law | 25 Jul 2018 4

The judgment on the Owens v Owens case has been handed down at the Supreme Court and has unanimously dismissed Mrs Owens appeal and said she must remain married to her estranged husband, for the time being.

Graham Coy, Partner at our London Chancery Lane office has been watching this case in detail and shares his initial thoughts…

“The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Mrs Owens appeal and said she must remain married to her estranged husband for the time being.

This will be devastating news for Mrs Owens and it puts the law back 40 years. Politicians can no longer justify inaction on their part and must introduce no-fault divorce without delay. The marriage is over as the Court of Appeal found but Mrs Owens cannot get divorced. We urgently need reform – this situation is farcical.”

You can read the full judgment here

Graham was based at the firm's London Chancery Lane office. His career as a family law specialist has spanned three decades. He is an experienced advocate, mediator and arbitrator who has worked in all areas of family law.

Share This Post...


  1. Terry james Scales says:

    Sorry coy, you are so wrong, divorce is regressive, not progressive. Making it easier is an abomination, you make a vow, you know what you are getting yourself into, just look at what happens to children with no fault divorce.

  2. Andrew says:

    I think you mean “must remain married!”

  3. Andrew says:

    This is a sad case. If I were Mr Owens I would at once offer a two-year divorce on fair financial terms.

    As for the wider issue: divorce should be administrative, not judicial, and no question should arise of defending it.

    Am I alone in finding Lady Hale’s analogy with constructive dismissal absurd?

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy