header-logo header-logo

10 August 2012
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Case law , Family
printer mail-detail

Marriage

MA v JA [2012] EWCH 2219 (Fam), [2012] All ER (D) 338 (Jul)

The answer to the question of when a ceremony in England was not wholly outside the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949 and would accordingly create a potentially valid marriage should be determined by reference to the provisions of that Act applied in a manner which was consistent with the principles summarised in Collett v Collett [1967] 2 All ER 426 and taking into account the factors referred to in Hudson v Leigh [2009] All ER (D) 124 (Jun).

It was an established principle that the failure to comply with the preliminaries, the publication of banns or obtaining a licence, did not, by itself, affect the validity of the marriage. Such a failure would only result in the marriage being void if the failure was deliberate. Further, the failure to give notice or obtain a certificate did not prevent a marriage from being within the scope of the 1949 Act.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll