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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll