Are divorce laws ripe for reform?

However Mr Wright went back to the High Court, arguing that it was unfair that he be expected to support his ex wife indefinitely, even after his planned retirement at 65 while she made “no effort whatsoever to seek work”. Most of the remarks about there being no good reason why Mrs Wright should not go out to work came from the original judge, Judge Roberts, who heard the case, with Lord Justice Pitchford agreeing and upholding that ruling.

Lawyers immediately hailed the decision as a game-changer that would bring English law more into line with Scotland and Europe and end the culture that an ex wife may have a “meal ticket for life”.

It also comes at a time when there is mounting pressure for reform of the divorce laws, but little political will. A series of judges and lawyers — Sir James Munby, president of the family division, Mr Justice Mostyn, Baroness Deech — have all urged an overhaul in recent months; from the way divorce is obtained to how assets are divided.

This week the Marriage Foundation, headed by another senior family judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, launched its manifesto for all political parties — a key plank of which is to modernise the divorce laws. “Having an out-of-date body of family law, especially surrounding divorce, is bad for the stablity of couple relationships because myths then abound,” he told The Times this week. “Society needs a set of laws surrounding family failure that is easily understandable and accessible, otherwise the pain and damage of separation is made worse and disputes are prolonged.”

Current laws date from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which grew from a royal commission in the 1950s, he says. Since then, society has transformed “beyond recognition” and current laws — including those on maintenance — do not reflect society as it is or should be.

What is needed? Sir James Munby proposed simplifying divorce so that it could be obtained “over the counter”, at one of a few processing centres. Most of the 120,000 divorces a year should be taken out of courts altogther, he argued last year. The idea split lawyers; Coleridge is one who disagrees. “Speaking from the point of view of a practical lawyer, it is probably right but I think it’s a step too far. It belittles marriage. Certain things are better done as a judicial act — it sends entirely the wrong message.” Ending a marriage, he adds, should not be just like “getting a dog licence” — and from a civil servant from the department of this or that. “Getting a divorce should be seen as a very serious step only sanctioned, even nominally, by a judge.”

Second is the question of financial arrangements post-divorce. “The way in which the spoils of marriage are divided up goes to the very root of the social norms/mores, especially women’s rights and role in society. Some societies give wives almost no right to claim, for instance Muslim wives,” he said. In Scotland maintenance is limited to three years.

So is it time to end the principle of the “meal ticket for life”? Coleridge says the issue is “very complex” and finely nuanced. “If a woman finds herself divorced in her mid-50s, should she be forced to go out to try to find work, when she is deskilled and gave up a potentially prosperous career to look after the children? Situations vary drastically and judges views differ markedly with strong views, especially female judges, who themselves have probably worked for their whole adult life. But stay-at-home mothers are to be valued as much, surely?”

The problem, he says, is that without statutory guidance, courts “make it up.” Judges are “drawn from a very narrow section of society — who says they are right in their approach?”

Instead, it should fall to parliament to provide clear guidance. Parliament should also take action to remove fault as a ground for divorce. “I would get rid of it. The current law is the worst of all worlds: it pretends to be fault-based but in fact the parties also do a deal because they don’t want to wait for two years. It is completely pointless. So they have to find adultery and [unreasonable] behaviour. But if used they are cobbled together, although one or the other side always resents it. “

It is now three years since Coleridge set up the Marriage Foundation, a charity that promotes marriage and highlights the impact of relationship breakdown. The move led to his departure as a full-time judge after a series of warnings from his superiors about speaking out publicly on marriage — and after public complaints. He is still sitting on a couple of cases, but mostly devotes time to the foundation and to sitting as an arbitrator in family cases.

As well as divorce law reform, Coleridge, and the Marriage Foundation in its manifesto, wants a cabinet minister for families and family breakdown; a tax and benefits sytem that supports marriage; funds to promote relationship education and a policy that “unashamedly champions marriage as the gold standard for all” — demolishing myths such as that “cohabitation is as stable a state as marriage”.

Governments, he says, cannot legislate for stronger families but can foster the right environment for them. Modern divorce law is one part of that, “The laws have not been overhauled for half a century. Let’s have a new and sensible law that ensures people only get divorced when they have exhausted all other avenues and are fully informed — and does not make the pain and damage even worse than now.”

Supreme court ruling: what the lawyers say

■ James Brown, family lawyer with JMW, predicted “many thousands of individuals” would now be looking into possible claims against former partners.“It amounts to nothing short of a call to action, especially given the huge numbers of individuals who divorce in England and Wales every year without having a financial order in place.”

■ Catherine Thomas, Vardags: “The ex-wife will not be able to share in the ex-husband’s wealth but the courts will now consider if she has needs generated by the marriage, and should be met by her ex — a salutary lesson to divorcing couples to tie up all their loose ends in their finances.”

■ Jo Edwards, chairwoman of Resolution, said that had Ms Wyatt lost, people denied legal advice because of cuts would have been at risk of having claims struck out, simply because of delay. But it was also important, she said, “that people who’ve become wealthy over time are not exposed to potentially opportunistic claims many years after a marriage has broken down”. She urged reform of the law on financial provision on divorce, to achieve “greater clarity and a clearer intention to get couples to financial independence sooner”.

■ Josh McEvoy, of Mundays, said: “The past has come back to haunt Mr Vince almost two decades on. Despite the lengthy delay . . . Ms Wyatt has been found to have a ‘reasonable prospect of success’. It is a stark reminder that unless financial matters are dealt with at the time of divorce, such claims can remain open long into the future.”

■ Tom Farley-Hills, partner at London law firm Harbottle & Lewis, said: “It doesn’t matter who you are or how poor or wealthy you are when you get divorced, you need a court order as well to tie up the financial claims. Dissolving the marriage is only half the job done. Financial claims on divorce run and run and run, as this decision shows. Everybody should get legal advice on divorce so that legal claims for financial provision can be dealt with there and then so that there are no nasty suprises years later.”

■ Michael Gouriet, partner at Withers, said the case was an “extremely rare beast” and would not open the floodgates on historic claims. “The judgment merely stresses that Ms Wyatt is entitled to be heard and the key resulting question is whether she will now get any retrospective award in recognition of her contribution for raising their son.”