Propose a change

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

168 Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably

(1) Subject to section 165, an application for a dissolution order may be made to the court by either civil partner on the ground that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably. (2) On an application for a dissolution order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into— (a) the facts alleged by the applicant, and (b) any facts alleged by the respondent. (3) The court hearing an application for a dissolution order must not hold that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably unless the applicant satisfies the court of one or more of the facts described in subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) or (d). (4) But if the court is satisfied of any of those facts, it must make a dissolution order unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the civil partnership has not broken down irretrievably. (5) The facts referred to in subsections (3) and (4) are— (a) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent; (b) that— (i) the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application (“2 years' separation”), and (ii) the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made; (c) that the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately preceding the making of the application (“5 years' separation”); (d) that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application. (6) The court must not make a dissolution order without considering the oral testimony of the applicant unless for special reasons it orders that such testimony be dispensed with.

Your change, as a redline

168 Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably

(1) Subject to section 165, an application for a dissolution order may be made to the court by either civil partner on the ground that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably. (2) On an application for a dissolution order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into— (a) the facts alleged by the applicant, and (b) any facts alleged by the respondent. (3) The court hearing an application for a dissolution order must not hold that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably unless the applicant satisfies the court of one or more of the facts described in subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) or (d). (4) But if the court is satisfied of any of those facts, it must make a dissolution order unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the civil partnership has not broken down irretrievably. (5) The facts referred to in subsections (3) and (4) are— (a) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent; (b) that— (i) the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application (“2 years' separation”), and (ii) the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made; (c) that the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately preceding the making of the application (“5 years' separation”); (d) that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application. (6) The court must not make a dissolution order without considering the oral testimony of the applicant unless for special reasons it orders that such testimony be dispensed with.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds