Caroline and I celebrated our 43rd wedding anniversary last week. It hasn’t always been plain sailing. I am always doubtful if any married couple claims never to have had an argument. On the other hand in a healthy relationship, you work through the problems and come out the other side stronger for having had to confront some issues together. I suppose the crunch comes if one of you doesn’t really care whether you come out the other side or not. Commitment to each other and to what you build together alongside love has always been a touchstone for me. Studies show that long term relationships are good for us in terms of physical and mental well-being.

But what happens when one of the parties no longer thinks it is worth the effort? After 40 years of marriage, Tini Owens decided that her marriage with Hugh needed to end. Eventually she moved and tried to bring a divorce based on allegations of unreasonable behaviour. The trouble was that Hugh decided to contest the grounds. The question for Lady Hale and her colleagues in the Supreme Court was whether Tini could have her divorce anyway. Reluctantly the judges decided she could not as the law was clear and it was up to Parliament to enact any changes. Tini will now have to wait until she has been separated for 5 years.

When I had just started as a Trainee Solicitor in 1973, the Matrimonial Causes Act brought about a divorce revolution. There was only one ground for a divorce at the time, namely irretrievable breakdown, but that had to be evidenced by any one of five facts: there had been a 5 year separation, unreasonable behaviour, adultery, desertion for 2 years or two years separation with consent. Thus if there had been no desertion, no adultery, no real grounds of unreasonable behaviour and there was no consent, then a petitioner had to wait for 5 years. In the old days, the evidence of unreasonable behaviour or whatever the ground there was had to be recited in court and proved to the judge in open court. I conducted a number of divorce cases. “Could you describe to his Honour the events of the night of the 23rd when the trifle ended up on the floor?” You get the drift of the kind of proceedings these were. If defended then the case went to the High Court.

The procedures are much streamlined nowadays but the facts of irretrievable breakdown have not themselves been reformed. We live in a vastly different society today than 1973. Perhaps it is time for Parliament to bring in truly “no fault” divorce but in these times of Brexit this can hardly be a priority for the Government. In the meantime, the judges did not feel they could change the law by judicial rote and I am sure they were right. Tini Owens will just have to wait. How that will help her or Hugh or society at large is entirely another question. It is hard to see how any marriage can succeed when one of the parties has decided that it is not worth the effort.

So Tini’s alleged grounds of divorce really were too trifling but this sort of case is very rare. Normally, the other party will not contest the grounds and unless they are very flimsy indeed, the court will grant a decree. As our family team will tell you it is the issues to do with the division of property and contact with the children that really consume their time. Such cases need sensitive and careful handling as well as a wealth of experience to know what a court is likely to make of the circumstances of this particular family. So it is time for Parliament to have a look at this issue. They already have to deal with the Civil Partnership issue to make the law compatible across all groups and this is another area ripe for reform.