header-logo header-logo

01 March 2023
Issue: 8015 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

Weddings outlawed for those below age of majority

The minimum age for marriage rose to 18 this week, as the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 came into force.

The Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to aid, abet or encourage any child under 18 to enter into any form of marriage, and a criminal offence for a responsible person such as a parent or guardian to fail to protect a child from entering into any form of marriage. The offences are punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The law applies to religious and cultural marriages in England and Wales, as well as those registered with the local authority. The law in Scotland, where the minimum age is 16 and no parental consent is required, and in Northern Ireland, where 16- and 17-year-olds can marry with parental consent, remain unaffected.

Nicky Hunter, partner at Stowe Family Law, said the reform ‘finally ended the archaic law in England and Wales that has allowed children aged 16 and 17 to be married, with the consent of their parents, even though they are legally considered to be children.

‘The Marriage Act 1949, which was in place up until [this week], legitimised child marriage in England and Wales. The mechanism of parental consent which existed under this law, whilst originally intended to be a safeguard against child marriage has, in reality, proved in many cases to be a vehicle for parental abuse.

‘Campaigners have long argued that the existing law has allowed children between the ages of 16-18 to be coerced into marriage without their consent and against their best interests, pointing to many cases where young people have been subjected to domestic abuse, some suffering lifelong harms, as well as losing opportunities for education, employments and personal growth and independence.’

Deborah Jeff, partner at Simkins, said: ‘It was high time that the law called out this abuse of children, shutting down this form of manipulation of forced marriage under the heading of “consent” of a parent. Of even greater significance is that it captures all forms of "marriage" even those not recognised by the law as being such.’

Issue: 8015 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll