Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

MARRIAGE: MA v JA and the Attorney General [2012] EWHC 2219 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:21 PM
Slug : 2012ewhc2219fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 7, 2012, 05:05 AM
Article ID : 99675

(Family Division, Moylan J, 27 July 2012) 

The husband, supported by the wife, submitted that a marriage ceremony conducted by an Imam at a Mosque was valid and sought a declaration under s 55(a) of the Family Law Act 1996. The Attorney General intervened and submitted it was not capable of recognition and was in effect a non-marriage.

At the time the ceremony took place the husband and wife were not informed of the formalities required under the Marriage Acts and as a result some of the requirements of the Acts were not fulfilled.

The presumption of marriage could not be applied to the case in order to establish the relevant requirements were fulfilled. However, the ceremony was of the kind permitted by English law and was in a form capable of producing a valid marriage. The declaration was granted.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from