The issue was whether a Belgian decree pronouncing void a marriage celebrated in England should be recognised here. The parties had entered into the marriage with no intention of ever living together. Relying on its notion of public policy, the Belgian Court treated that as a sham and so declared it void. The opposite view was taken here. English public policy required that the marriage be held valid here and the court so declared. An attempt was then made to obtain recognition of the Belgian nullity decree. The court considered the effect of the illegality of a marriage when seeking to enforce here a decree of divorce.
Held: The rule in Sottomayor v De Barros (No. 2) applied to determine the validity of a marriage where consent was in issue.
Judges:
Sir John Arnold P
Citations:
[1981] Fam 77
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Vervaeke v Smith HL 1983
A petitioner for a decree of nullity of an English marriage in the English courts on the grounds of lack of consent to the marriage, having failed to obtain such decree, obtained a declaration from the Belgian court that the English marriage, was . .
Cited – J v S T (Formerly J) CA 21-Nov-1996
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.219312