As I anticipated in my last post, much has been written about the Court of Appeal's decision in Tchenguiz v Imerman this week, so much so that I could not possibly have read it all. However, of what I have read my favourite piece is the post on the subject by Marilyn Stowe entitled: The Hildebrand Rules and Imerman v Tchenguiz: what about Jim v Mary? Why? Because it explains the practical reality of the effect of the decision in the kind of case that any family lawyer is likely to come across. I also agree entirely with Marilyn's view of the decision, which she calls "a sad day for family justice", and with her analysis of what was wrong with the decision ("they failed to recognise the unique and fundamental nature of marriage"), and why ("unfortunately the Court of Appeal ... was dominated by judges who are not family lawyers and who have little experience of the realities of dealing with everyday cases such as we lawyers deal with across the country").
I was going to mention Marilyn's post here when I first read it, but I decided to wait a couple of days and instead give it my Post of the Month award for July 2010.