As I flick through the pages of national newspapers and magazines, I am reminded of what media commonly describe as ‘the news cycle’.

To put it simply, it summarises how the unceasing flow of articles means that stories which are topical one minute are often simply fit for wrapping fish and chips the next.

However, for the instant that subjects are in-vogue, they can not only generate coverage but attract a raft of similarly themed tales.

Take, for instance, a Daily Telegraph report about a Swedish university study which concluded that individuals who have treatments to help rapid weight loss are twice as likely to see their marriages end in divorce.

That news coincided with a feature in The Times about something known as ‘micro-cheating’ which can undermine relationships.

The author described how it covers such things as clothes shopping with someone other than your partner, “proper dancing” and exchanging intimate texts or even music streaming playlists.

Such suggestions may appear relatively frivolous to many people but they do occasionally crop up in the work handled by myself and my colleagues at Hall Brown Family Law.

Earlier this year, I spoke to one person whose suspicions were aroused by his wife having her teeth done.

To some (especially, I would say, those in marriages which are already experiencing difficulties), a decision to change the way you look with cosmetic surgery, a new wardrobe or a keep fit regime might be regarded as a warning of trouble ahead.

Over the course of my career, there have been many instances in which divorces have resulted from a spouse’s infidelity.

Yet it is not the only reason why marriages become unsustainable. People also tire of having their lives or finances controlled by their other half, just as they can come to resent their husband or wife spending more time at work than at home, whether or not their time at the office is prompted by attraction to a colleague rather than devotion to their career.

Equally, though, I should point out that whilst being alert and attentive to issues in a relationship is a good thing – keeping nascent problems from becoming existential crises for a marriage – looking for something which might genuinely not be there, can create difficulties all of its own.

That is not just because focusing on the details of misconduct which can contribute to the demise of a marriage is not necessary any longer.

In April 2022, the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 came into force. One of its key provisions was ‘no-fault’ divorce, removing the need to attribute blame to a spouse who might have been responsible for the failure of a relationship.

Some clients are surprised to learn that conduct does not always or automatically have a bearing on the nature of a financial settlement on divorce.

That is certainly not to say that it is disregarded by family courts weighing up what constitutes a fair outcome.

The law which governs such deliberations – the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 – states quite explicitly that “the court shall in particular have regard to” a series of eight factors.

They include “the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it”.

Although it can be extremely difficult to substantiate why someone’s conduct should affect a financial settlement, it does happen.

Earlier this year, a former banker, Ardal Loh-Gronager, saw the amount to which he was entitled under the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement signed with his wife, Wei-Lyn Woh, reduced by more than £4 million due to his “deplorable” conduct both during their marriage and divorce proceedings.

Mr Justice Cusworth described how Mr Loh-Gronager had “sought to undermine, harass and unsettle the wife, in the hope that she could be deterred from fighting on against him”, setting up social media accounts to publish photographs of his wife without her knowledge and creating false evidence.

The judge ruled that “I am satisfied that the husband’s behaviour has been such that it would not be fair to the wife to completely disregard it”.

Even though the outcome of this case seemingly offers encouragement to others wishing to claim that a spouse’s poor conduct should influence their own financial settlements, it will not necessarily make their argument any more likely to succeed.

The circumstances referred to in the judgement are so exceptional that I do not think that it will lead to an opening of floodgates.

The question of conduct is something which is currently under consideration, thanks to the terms of a consultation launched by the Government in June.

For the time being, though, the law which has been in force for half a century remains the framework applied to any such arguments.

Whilst it is always worth being alive to the state of one’s relationship, it is essential to avoid throwing oneself headlong into pursuit of improper motives for behaviour which is actually perfectly innocent.

It is always worth taking advice before acting on any suspicions. More than potentially compromising a divorce if a marriage really is in trouble, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy by pushing a viable relationship past the point of no return.