While Coronavirus – COVID-19 falls outside the normal scope of L&RUK, in view of its widespread impact in this area it has been the subject of a number of posts.
Law & Religion UK is intended as a forum for what (we hope) is academically-rigorous exploration of the interactions between law and religion – broadly defined – together with the human rights issues associated with them. We are always interested in guest posts from colleagues in the field of law and religion.
We also welcome pertinent comments on current developments that reflect the views and opinions of their respective authors and meet the General Conditions applying to the site. However, those that do not meet those criteria or which are otherwise unidentifiable are unlikely to be published, especially comments that are abusive or defamatory. For more information see our comments policy below.
We write this blog because we’re passionate about our subject and – unlike some legal resources – it’s free to access and we aim to keep it that way.
if you’ve found the blog useful, might we suggest that you consider making a small donation to The Billable Hour? It’s the lawyers’ charity that raises money for Save the Children – and even a billable five minutes would help some of the most deprived children on the planet.
We welcome comments, subject to the following conditions:
- We will not publish comments that, in our opinion, are abusive, racist, homophobic, potentially defamatory or otherwise capable of offending the laws against hate speech – or common decency.
- Since L&RUK is intended as a blog for academic comment, those that add little to the academic debate on a particular issue are unlikely to be published.
- As a rule of thumb, we will not normally publish comments received more than fourteen days from the original day of posting.
- Anonymous comments will not be published.
Our decision as to whether or not a comment should be published is final.
Frank Cranmer & David Pocklington
On 10 September 2021, Mr Justice Moor handed down the judgment Yorston & Ors, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions)  EWFC 80 concerning 28 petitions to the High Court. In each case, the allegations of unreasonable behaviour were absolutely identical.
The petitions were referred by Deputy District Judge McHardy, the judge who is, on a day-to-day basis, in charge of the Divorce Unit at Bury St Edmunds, to HH Judge Roberts, the lead judge for divorce, who in turn referred them to Mr Justice Moor. He observed: Continue reading