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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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