2 Void and Voidable Marriages

Question 1

Wicken v Wicken (1999)

Answer 1

Husband claimed that marriage was void due to wife being already married. However, she produced evidence of divorce.

Question 2

Pazpena de vire v Pazpena de vire (2001)

Answer 2

Long period of cohabitation this will have presumption of valid marriage. Divorce is therefore more appropriate than nullity. Compelling evidence will need to be shown otherwise.

Question 3

S-T (formerly J) v J (transsexual: ancillary relief) (1998)

Answer 3

Marriage void on basis that they were not male and female. Claim for financial orders did not succeed due to the hindrance to marriage. Pre dates GRA and therefore would now be valid if applicant obtained GRA certificate.

Question 4

Rampal v Rampal (no.2) (2001)

Answer 4

A full investigation is needed where it is alleged that the marriage is void

Question 5

Whiston v Whiston (1995)

Answer 5

Did not establish a rule that no bigamist was entitled to apply for orders of financial relief. Instead the bigamy would be taken into account when making the orders

Question 6

Dredge v Dredge (1947)

Answer 6

Sexual intercourse before marriage is not consummation

Question 7

D v A (1845)

Answer 7

Intercourse must be “ordinary and complete” and not “incipient, imperfect and unnatural”

Question 8

R v R (1952)

Answer 8

Sexual intercourse requires penetration of vagina but not necessarily ejaculation

Question 9

White v White (1948); and

Cackett v Cackett (1950)

Answer 9

Coitus interruptus - penis withdrawn before ejaculation sufficient for consummation

Question 10

Grimes v Grimes (1948)

Answer 10

Judge reached opposite conclusion than in White v White and Cackett v Cackett

Question 11

G v G (1924)

Answer 11

Revulsion of the act on consummation is enough to say incapacitated

Question 12

Singh v Singh (1971)

Answer 12

Rational decision not to permit intercourse will not be enough to argue incapacity to consummate

Question 13

S v S (1962)

Answer 13

COA held that husbands application could succeed as wife has just had operation that was due to cure her. Incapacity was not clear at hearing and further investigations were needed.

Question 14

Horton v Horton (1947)

Answer 14

Wilful refusal to consummate without any excuse

Question 15

Ford v Ford (1987)

Answer 15

Parties married whilst husband was in prison. He showed no passion during prison visits and had no inclination to consummate whilst on home visits.

Question 16

Jodla v Jodla (1960); and

Kaur v Singh (1972)

Answer 16

Civil ceremony first on understanding that there would be no consummation until after religious ceremony. However, if the respondent refuses to organise/ go through with second ceremony they can be said to be wilfully refusing

Question 17

Morgan v Morgan (1959)

Answer 17

Parties elderly and married only for company. Agreed not to consummate. Pre-marital agreement in place.

Question 18

Baxter v Baxter (1947)

Answer 18

Refusal to have sexual intercourse without contraception. Open to other party to have relations although not perhaps on terms she favours.

Question 19

Singh v Singh (1971)

Answer 19

To claim duress there must be fear. Not just marriage as a sense of obligation

Question 20

Szechter v Szechter (1971)

Answer 20

Fear for duress must be sufficiently grave “threat of immediate danger… to life, limb or liberty”.

Question 21

Hirani v Hirani (1982)

Answer 21

CoA - whether threats consituted “undue pressure overbearing her will”

Question 22

P v R (Forced Marriage : Annullment: Procedure) (2003)

Answer 22

Forced marriage