1 The Formation of Adult Partnerships Flashcards
Irvin v Irvin
Whether husband had abandoned his English domicile of choice by living in Netherlands
Jude considered links with friends, nationality and limited assimilation into Dutch society - showed not abandoned domicile of choice
Hyde v Hyde (1866)
Definition of marriage
“The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”
Aguilar v Cyagnik (2006)
Helpful guidance on domicile
s2 Inheritance (provision for family and Dependants) Act 1975
Court of Appeal decided relevant question was whether deceased had formed necessary intention to remain permanently or indefinitely in England
Corbett v Corbett (1970)
Bride had undergone gender reassignment. However, she had not changed her birth certificate and therefore the marriage was considered void as it was between two men.
Rees v United Kingdom (1987), Cossey v United Kingdom (1991) and Sheffield and Horsham v United Kingdom (1998)
ECtHR refused to uphold right of transgender individuals who had undergone surgery to marry a person of the same birth stating there was no obligation to change birth certificates
Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) and I v United Kingdom (2002)
ECtHR held that UK has breached Art 8 and 12 in refused someone who had changer gender to change their birth certificate.
Berlinger v Bellinger (2003)
Changed gender from male to female and then married as a woman. Asked the court for a declaration that her marriage was valid. Judge at first instance and the Court of Appeal refused her application.
Eventually, Gender Recognition Act (2004) came in which allows individuals to legally change their birth certificates.
Cheni v Cheni (1962)
Spouses were uncle and niece. Void marriage under English law but permitted under the law of the parties domicile. Marriage recognised as valid.
Hussein v Hussein (1982)
Polygamous marriage. No polygamous marriages can be void in England and Wales.
Mohammed v Knott (1969)
Court had to consider potential polygamous marriage although main reason was age of wife. Parties had married when wife was 13yrs old. However, considered valid due to pre-marriage domicile of parties.
Wilkinson v Kitzinger (2006)
Parties who were both women were validly married in British Columbia in Canada. Under CPA 2004 treated a civil partnership.
Argued that no allowing their relationship to be a marriage contravened their Art 8,12 and 14 Human Rights.
Court agreed that there was discrimination between same sex and opposite sex couple. However, considered to be outside of Art 8 but it was within Art 12. However, felt reasonable and proportionate differences.
Sutton v Mischon de Reya and Another (2004)
Negligence claim against solicitors who had drawn up cohabiting contract for gay couple.
Contract referred to “master and servant relationship”.
