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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

JURISDICTION: XCC v AA and Others [2012] EWHC 2183 (COP)

Sep 29, 2018, 20:35 PM
Slug : jurisdiction-xcc-v-aa-and-others-2012-ewhc-2183-cop
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2013, 09:16 AM
Article ID : 101629

(Court of Protection, Parker J, 26 July 2012)

The woman, a British citizen, had severe learning difficulties, little language and needed assistance with almost every aspect of daily living. Following an arranged marriage in Bangladesh to her cousin a Forced Marriage Protection Order was granted due to significant concerns as to the woman's welfare. In the Court of Protection a number of interim declarations were made including that the woman was not motivated by a genuine desire to be married as opposed to having the benefit of a spousal visa.

When the issue of the marriage returned to the court the judge requested the Attorney General to instruct an advocate to the court. The opinion of the advocate was that the marriage should not be recognised by the courts of England and Wales. The court heard evidence from an expert in Islamic law and all parties, save the ‘husband' were in agreement that a non-recognition declaration should be made.

The court, invoking the inherent jurisdiction, made a declaration that the marriage celebrated in Bangladesh was not recognised as a valid marriage in England and Wales. It was in the woman's best interests to take steps to annul to marriage and to appoint the Official Solicitor, as her litigation friend, for that purpose.

There was no provision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make a non-recognition declaration in respect of a marriage. The court could, however, invoke the inherent jurisdiction in order to fill the gap. The court was entitled to do so, not by virtue of a welfare or best interests decision but by the fact that the woman had not consented to marriage. 


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