The Matrimonial Homes Act 1967
| Date | 01 May 1968 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1968.tb01189.x |
| Published date | 01 May 1968 |
STATUTES
Tm
MATRIMONIAL
HOMES
ACT
1967
IN
spring
1968
this Act looms much larger than
it
did when
it
received the Royal Assent on July
27, 1967,
or
when
it
was brought
into operation by the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of
1968.’
The reason is that the Divorce Reform Bill, now before Parliament,
seeks to sweep away the concept of the matrimonial offence
”
as the major ground
for
divorce, but has not attempted to grapple
with the real economic battles that are in fact fought Behind the
smoke-screen of whether a matrimonial offence has been committed
by him,
or
by her, by neither,
or
by both, and, if
so,
with what
effect on the other. What such battles really involve is the simple
question: must he continue to pay money to her
(or,
much more
rarely, she to him), and (far more complex because the choices are
so
open) how much and over what period
?
The Matrimonial Homes Act does not attempt to deal with
these questions.
It
is not the correlation and amendment of our
present rules about family property and maintenance which are
so
urgently needed now, and which the dissipation of the smoke-screen
of
‘(
matrimonial offences
”
will render even more necessary. This
is
not property legislation; it is not even an amendment
of
our
provisions about financial relief in matrimonial proceedings, but it
makes some provisions, short of title, about
de
facto
possession and
use of the most important single piece
of
property owned by most
families and needed by all human beings, namely,
a
place
of
residence. This is effected within the traditional mould of
‘(
rights
’’
for every woman with a living husband, be she the bride of ten
minutes
or
the wife
of
forty years; able-bodied, childless and
income-earning,
or
confined by dependent children, sickness
or
infirmity. The Matrimonial Homes Act has made no breach in the
traditional mould that, in matters of family property law, one
spouse should be awarded rights as against the other spouse
or
other people generally, but that children of the family do not enter
this framework of
“
rights.”
I
venture to suggest that what was
intolerable about the decision in
National Provincial
Bahk
Ltd.
v.
By
the Matrimonial Homes Act 1067 (Commencement) Order 1967,
S.I.
1790.
At the same time the Land Charges (Matrimonial Homes)
Rules
1967,
No.
1701, were issued, providing
for
the registration. renewal and cancellation
of
a
land charge under the Act anecting unregistered land.
The
Land Registra-
tion (Matrimonial Homes) Rules 1967,
S.I.
1792. made under the
Land
Re@stration Act
1925.
8.
144,
provide for the reristration or renewal
of
a
notice or caution protecting
a
spouse’s charge unjer the Act, or
of
a
court
order obtained under
8.
2
(2)
of
the Act, where the land
is
registered. These
rules provide
also
for the service
by
the Chief Land Registrar of
a
notice
warning
off
such
a
caution. Forms 99 and
100
are incorporated.
As
to costs,
see
Practice Direction [1068]
1
W.L.R.
365; [1968]
1
All E.R.
456.
305
VOL.
31
11
To continue reading
Request your trial