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
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
Authors

MARRIAGE: NS v MI [2006] EWHC 1646 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : ns-v-mi-2006-ewhc-1646-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 17, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87413

(Family Division; Munby J; 5 July 2006)[2006] FLR (forthcoming)

Granting a decree of nullity on the basis that the purported marriage was voidable for duress, the court reviewed the law concerning the abomination of forced marriage. If the victim of forced marriage were a child, the court would have full recourse to the full breadth of the wardship jurisdiction; if the victim were a vulnerable adult, the court would have recourse to the closely comparable adult inherent jurisdiction. When the court was able to intervene in time, it would make orders restraining the celebration of the marriage and, where appropriate, preventing the victim from being taken abroad for the purpose of being married. When the victim had already been taken abroad, the court would make orders designed to ensure the victim's repatriation. After repatriation further protective orders might be needed to prevent further attempts at forced marriage or to protect the victim from the risk of victimisation or retaliation. If the court could not intervene in time the court must attempt, wherever possible to remedy the consequences of such a gross transgression of an individual's integrity, the primary remedy being a suit for nullity, not a suit for divorce. It was important that public funding be made available so that such cases could be brought before the court, and appropriate that such cases be heard in the High Court. Forced marriage almost invariably involved the commission of very serious criminal offences by those participating in the arrangements, including serious sexual offences if the marriage were consummated by force. Forced marriage would also expose the perpetrators to civil remedies for such torts as trespass to the person and false imprisonment.

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