Like many divorce solicitors, I’m partial to a nice shirt or two. My favourite shirt shop also sells shoes for the discerning customer. Most are conventional classic black or brown ones, but they also sell a peculiar two-tone brogue, with uppers that are cream and brown. Not so much a classic shoe, more downright old-fashioned. They are Co-Respondent shoes, just a bit too flashy for polite society. Not the sort of thing that a gentleman would wear.
You don’t see a lot of Co-Respondent shoes anymore. They’ve gone the way of spats and bowler hats. Sadly, Co-Respondents in divorce proceedings are still all too common. Some people who choose to divorce on the ground of adultery still feel the need to name a third party as Co-Respondent.
I cannot conceive of a good reason to do this. For a start, it simply isn’t legally necessary. Adultery divorces can take place with an unnamed Co-Respondent; the petition just says that the Respondent has committed adultery with man or women whom the Petitioner does not wish to name. Secondly, it just makes everything slower and more expensive, because if the Co-Respondent won’t co-operate, you have to go the expense and inconvenience of proving that he or she has been served with the papers. Thirdly, and most importantly, it usually just causes increased ill will between the divorcing husband and wife, which is not exactly in short supply already. Dragging a third party into the divorce proceedings just increases the hassle, however much it may give a cuckolded spouse a brief moment of vengeance.