header-logo header-logo

02 September 2020
Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Law Commission proposes wedding makeover

Couples would be able to marry wherever they want, including outdoors, under sweeping reforms proposed by the Law Commission

In a consultation paper launched this week, ‘Weddings’, the Commission suggests doing away with many of the regulations governing rituals and music that restrict choice when couples plan their wedding ceremony. For example, couples must marry in a registered building, either a place of worship or a licensed secular venue, and cannot marry outdoors, even in the garden of a licensed venue. If marrying in a secular venue, the ceremony cannot include any religious references.

Its proposed reforms are to allow weddings outdoors, for example, on beaches and in private gardens, in private homes and on cruise ships. Couples would be allowed to give notice of their wedding online or by post rather than in person. Humanists and independent celebrants would be allowed to conduct legally binding weddings, and there would be scope for the government to allow remote weddings during times of national emergency, such as another pandemic. 

The Commission proposes a ‘robust system of preliminaries’ to protect against forced and sham marriages. Its proposals aim to help address the issue of religious wedding ceremonies that don’t comply with the legal requirements for marriage, which mean the couple either have to have a second civil ceremony or remain legally unmarried. The Commission proposes making it an offence for a person purporting to be an officiant misleading a couple about the effect of the ceremony.

Professor Nick Hopkins, Family Law Commissioner at the Law Commission, said: ‘The 19th century laws are not fit for purpose and stop many couples having a wedding that is meaningful and personal to them.’

The consultation closes on 3 December, and the Commission aims to publish its final report in the second half of 2021.

View the consultation at: bit.ly/31Wh3dH.

@Law_Commission

Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll