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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll