Peter thought it would be easy to obtain a divorce decree under the new legislation, as he had been separated for more than four years and already had a separation agreement. But he was wrong.

He and his former wife, Anne, had been legally separated since 1991 and they had had an amicable relationship since. Under their separation agreement he had paid her for her half of their house, plus a sum of £5,000. They had no children, and Anne had a good job, so there were no maintenance payments.

Both had formed other relationships and Peter had two young children with his second partner. Peter was now not working due to ill-health. He and his second partner wished to marry, and early in 1997 he told Anne he would like to proceed to divorce. "Initially she agreed," he says. "I went to the High Court because I understood it would be quicker."

But then he discovered his wife had a full legal team, who told him she was contesting the divorce, and that she was looking for a lump sum of £30,000. She entered a claim, he entered a counter-claim and they both had to produce affidavits of means. The case was then re-entered in the Circuit Court, where it was heard in June 1998, a year later.

There Ms Justice Alison Lindsay upheld the terms of the original separation agreement, saying that the circumstances had not significantly changed. According to Peter they had, in that he was no longer working and had children, but he was very happy with the outcome. His main concern was that he had lost a year - and a lot of money in legal fees - in the process.

Anne then appealed the Circuit Court decision to the High Court. They had sought a date in April last year, but the case was not listed until July. It was then adjourned until January of this year. There the appeal was struck out and costs were awarded to Peter. "I represented myself at this stage," explains Peter. "I had run out of money and had to let my solicitor go. This was going on for three years, and it was not getting into court. Meanwhile the lawyers were still being paid, including for the days when the case was adjourned. I had all that stress, which affected my health. The Department of Justice was not providing the service it should have."

When the appeal came up in the High Court it was struck out, and costs awarded against Anne. However, up to the end of last month there was a possibility that it might be re-entered, so the uncertainty continued for Peter.

Muriel Walls, a family lawyer with solicitors McCann Fitzgerald, says that while there are a number of elements of bad luck in this story, "the same ingredients are coming up in case after case. We always say to clients we can't guarantee a separation agreement will be maintained. It can come down to the emotional state of the people involved.

"We always try to ensure it is uncontested from the other side before doing the paperwork. Then it goes through on the nod. If it appears it is going to be contested, there's a chance to back out." But she does not think this means people should postpone taking action. "There is no good time to process a divorce. Just get on with it and see what happens."

The names of the couple have been changed to protect their identity