The (new) divorce petition asks petitioners for the name “of the person your spouse has committed adultery with”. Until 1991, it was necessary to name that person. That created additional work/costs and engendered ill-feeling. The rule change in 1991 made it clear that a third party did not need to be named. A respondent is more likely to co-operate if the third party is not named. Potentially, the wording of sections 7 and 8 of the new petition could easily lead to an increase in applicants naming the third party out of malice or inadvertence. The wording seems to be a clear invitation to include the name and address of the third party and no further guidance is given. Indeed, the inclusion of section 8 could have unintended consequences.