Section 1(2)(b) is expressed in very simple language, and ‘is . . quite easy for a layman to understand’. The court considered the necessary test for whether unreasonable behaviour had reached a point such as to allow a decree of divorce.
Dunn J said: ‘Coming back to my analogy of a direction to a jury, I ask myself the question; would any right-thinking person come to the conclusion that this husband has behaved in such a way that this wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him, taking into account the whole of the circumstances and the characters and personalities of the parties?’
Dunn J
[1974] 2 All ER 766, [1974] Fam 47
Divorce Reform Act 1969 1(2)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Adopted – O’Neill v O’Neill CA 1975
The court considered the level of unreasonable behaviour necessary to found a decree of divorce.
Cairns LJ said: ‘The right test is, in my opinion, accurately stated in Rayden on Divorce . . ‘The words ‘reasonably be expected’ prima facie . .
Cited – Wachtel v Wachtel CA 8-Feb-1973
The court described the 1969 and 1970 Acts as ‘a reforming statute designed to facilitate the granting of ancillary relief in cases where marriages have been dissolved . . We regard the provisions of sections 2,3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1970 as . .
Cited – Buffery v Buffery CA 30-Nov-1987
The court considered a petition for divorce beased upon unreasonable behaviour. The Wife petitioner appealed from the decision dismissing her petition for the dissolution of her marriage to the respondent.
Held: After discussing O’Neill: ‘one . .
Applied – Birch v Birch CA 22-Oct-1991
W appealed against dismissal of her petition for divorce to the effect that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably have been expected to live with him. The judge had found H difficult but that his behaviour was not to . .
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Approved – Butterworth v Butterworth CA 7-Feb-1997
Brooke LJ, with whom Balcombe LJJ agreed, treated the test for whether behaviour was so unreasonable as to support a petition for divorce as being that laid down by Dunn J in Livingstone-Stallard. . .
Cited – Owens v Owens SC 25-Jul-2018
W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.231160 br>