Szechter (orse Karsov) v Szechter: 1971

The parties, who had been given leave to stay in the United Kingdom for only a limited period, had acquired a domicile of choice in England by residing here with the intention of making this country their permanent home. It was immaterial that their intentions were liable to be frustrated by the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to permission for their continued residence here.
As to the necessary element of consent to a marriage. Sir Jocelyn Simon P said: ‘It is, in my view, insufficient to invalidate an otherwise good marraige that a party has entered into it in order to escape from a disagreeable situation, such as penury or social degradation. In order for the impediment of duress to vitiate an otherwise valid marriage, it must, in my judgment, be proved that the will of one of the parties thereto has been overborne by genuine and reasonably held fear caused by threat of immediate danger (for which the party is not himself responsible), to life, limb or liberty, so that the constraint destroys the reality of consent to ordinary wedlock. I think that in the instant ease that test is satisfied.’
Karminski J said: ‘In order for the impediment of duress to vitiate an otherwise valid marriage, it must, in my judgment, be proved that the will of one of the parties thereto has been overborne by genuine and reasonably held fear caused by threat of immediate danger (for which the party is not himself responsible), to life, limb or liberty, so that the constraint destroys the reality of consent to ordinary wedlock.’
Sir Jocelyn Simon P, Karminski J
[1971] P 286, [1971] 1 WLR 171
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedCruh v Cruh 1945
A man of Austrian or German origin had been recommended for deportation following a conviction for conspiracy. The Home Secretary intended to deport him as soon as it became practicable to do so.
Held: Until the recommendation was actually . .
CitedBoldrini v Boldrini and Martini CA 1932
An alien may acquire a domicile of choice in this country even though he might be required to leave at any time by executive action with no right of appeal.
Lawrence LJ said: ‘What had to be shown is that when the petitioner presented his . .

Cited by:
CitedMark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.228180