Why precedents are dangerous in unreasonable behaviour petitions
The recent case Yorston & Ors, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions) [2021] EWFC 80 has shown the dangers of using a precedent or template in family proceedings, or indeed in any proceedings.
The case involved 28 divorce petitions, produced by the same firm, with identical wording for the particulars of unreasonable behaviour.
Mr Justice Moor stated that this was an impossibility.
“Each case must, of necessity, be different. Different spouses behave in different ways. It is quite impossible for each of 28 respondents to have behaved in exactly the same way as the other 27.” (para 5)
The judge went on to comment how the process should work:
“Each petitioner has to put, in their respective petitions, their own particulars, which are true and which actually occurred. The respondent can then accept the petition, seek to amend the allegations, or to defend the divorce if he or she wishes to do so.” (para 8)
The specific wording used was very generic, as follows:
“For about a year prior to the separation the respondent would become moody without justification and argumentative towards the petitioner. He/she would behave in this way on at least a couple of days every week, which would cause a lot of tension within the home thereby making the petitioner’s life very uncomfortable. During the same period the respondent would also often ignore the petitioner and decline to communicate with him. He/she would also behave in this way on about two days every week, which would also cause a lot of tension within the home and make the petitioner’s life very difficult. The respondent showed no interest in leading the life of a married woman/man for about a year before the separation. For example, he/she would go out socially on his/her own and basically exclude the petitioner from his/her life thereby making him/her feel very dejected.”
However, the point raised by this case remains the same even if the language was less generic. It is unacceptable to simply copy a template when preparing particulars of this nature. The judge commented that “this could potentially amount to the crime of perverting the course of justice”.
In this case, all 28 petitions were struck out and must be restarted.