Tini Owens, who says she is trapped in a marriage which her husband won’t let her leave, has lost her Supreme Court bid for a divorce
The wife of a mushroom farmer who says she is trapped in a loveless marriage has lost her long-running legal battle to divorce her husband.
Tini Owens, 68, wants to end her 40-year marriage to 80-year-old Hugh Owens, insisting their relationship has broken down.
But, in a case which has led to calls for Britain’s divorce laws to be changed, Mr Owens refuses to agree to the split.
Despite his wife having had an affair and the couple now living in separate houses, he says she is just ‘bored’ and insists they still have a ‘few years’ to enjoy life together.
Five Supreme Court justices today ruled that Mrs Owens must stay married.
Lady Hale, Britain’s most senior female judge, said: ‘I have found this case very troubling. It is not for us to change the law laid down by Parliament – our role is only to interpret and apply the law.’
She said she had been ‘reluctantly persuaded’ that Mrs Owens’ appeal should be dismissed.
Mr and Mrs Owens married in 1978 and lived in Broadway, Worcestershire, judges have heard. Mrs Owens petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out.
Hugh Owens refuses to give his wife a divorce and insists she has no grounds to divorce him
The couple have been living in neighbouring properties in Worcestershire since February 2015
Supreme Court justices analysed rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of ‘unreasonable’ behaviour and ‘fault’, at a Supreme Court hearing in London in May and delivered a ruling on Wednesday.
One, Lord Wilson, said justices had ruled against Mrs Owens ‘with reluctance’.
He said the ‘question for Parliament’ was whether the law governing ‘entitlement to divorce’ remained ‘satisfactory’.
Lord Wilson indicated that Mrs Owens would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple have been separated for five years.
Mrs Owen’s husband says she is ‘bored’ rather than because of any legal grounds
Another, Supreme Court president Lady Hale, said she found the case ‘very troubling’.
But she said it was not for judges to ‘change the law’.
Mrs Owens had already lost two rounds of the battle.
In 2016 she failed to persuade a Family Court judge to allow her to divorce.
Last year three appeal judges ruled against her after a Court of Appeal hearing in London.
They said Mrs Owens had failed to establish that her marriage had, legally, irretrievably broken down and dismissed her challenge to a ruling by Judge Robin Tolson.
One appeal judge said she reached her conclusion with ‘no enthusiasm whatsoever’ but that Parliament would have to decide whether to introduce ‘no fault’ divorce on demand.
Another said Parliament had ‘decreed’ that being in a ‘wretchedly unhappy marriage’ was not a ground for divorce.
Mrs Owens’ lawyers say she should not have to prove that Mr Owens’ behaviour has been ‘unreasonable’ – only that she should not ‘reasonably be expected’ to remain with him.
They say the case is about ‘proper interpretation’ of legislation.
Barrister Philip Marshall QC, who leads Mrs Owens’ legal team, told Supreme Court justices that a ‘modest shift’ of focus in interpretation of legislation was required.
But barrister Nigel Dyer QC, who leads Mr Owens’ legal team, disagreed and raised concern about the introduction of divorce on ‘demand’.