Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

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