Entering Marriage/CP Flashcards
K v K [2016]
why is knowing when a marriage/CP is entered into important
FACTS:
R (Hodkin & Anor) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013]
FACTS: The first appellant, Ms Hodkin, is engaged to be married to a Mr Calcioli. They are members of the Church of Scientology and seek to be married in its premises on Queen Victoria Street, London. The second appellant is the proprietor of that church. On 31 May 2011 a trustee of that church applied on behalf of the congregation to record the church under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 (“PWRA”). This statute provides that every “place of meeting for religious worship” may be certified to the Registrar General, who will cause that place of meeting to be recorded as such a place. Recording under PWRA then entitles the building to be registered for the solemnisation of marriages under the Marriage Act 1949, which in turn enables the building to be used for marriage according to the “form and ceremony” chosen by the marrying couple. The Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages stated that she was bound by the Court of Appeal’s 1970 judgment in R v Registrar General, ex parte Segerdal [1970] to reject the appellants’ application. In that case, which involved an earlier attempt by the Church of Scientology to record a chapel under PWRA, the Court of Appeal had held that Scientology did not involve “religious worship” since it did not involve “reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being”, but rather instruction in a philosophy.
JUDGEMENT: The Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, that a Scientologist chapel is “a place of meeting for religious worship” for the purposes of section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, and therefore it may be licensed for the solemnisation of marriage
Quick v Quick [1953]
Australian case
Registration of marriage not essential to its validity
CAO v Bath [2000]
FACTS: The claimant and her husband had been married at a Sikh temple, and lived together for many years before his death. The temple had not been accredited for marriages, and the Secretary of State resisted payment of benefits to the claimant as a widow, saying that she had not been married.
JUDGEMENT/PRINCIPLE: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. There was nothing to make the marriage void, and there was a presumption of a valid marriage where the parties had gone through a ceremony and had lived together on that basis. The fact discovered many years later that the ceremony was defective would not mean that the couple were not married. This was supported by old common law rules. The validity of a marriage should be upheld wherever possible.
MA v JA and the Attorney General [2012]
FACTS: The petitioner and respondent underwent a ceremony of marriage in a mosque in 2002. The ceremony was conducted by an Imam. The petitioner and respondent intended that the ceremony would create a valid marriage under English law. The Imam believed he was ‘only’ performing the religious ceremony. It was agreed that the ceremony did not comply with the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949. The petitioner and respondent sought a declaration that the marriage was a valid marriage at its inception. The Attorney General intervened in the case and opposed the declaration citing public policy reasons which required the rules governing the formulation of marriage should be strictly observed..
JUDGEMENT: Moylan J granted the declaration that the marriage was valid in English law.
PRINCIPLE: The marriage was not void as the parties did not knowingly and wilfully breach the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949.
