KC and NNC v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department
A marriage conducted by telephone abroad with a man who lacked the capacity to marry, though valid where it was celebrated, was not recognised in England because recognising it would be contrary to public policy.
Facts
IC was a young man with severe learning disabilities and autism, who lived with his parents in England and lacked the capacity to consent to marriage or sexual relations. His family arranged for him to marry a woman in Bangladesh, in a ceremony conducted over the telephone, which was valid under the law of Bangladesh. The local authority applied for orders to protect IC, and the question arose whether the marriage was valid in England.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the marriage would not be recognised in England. Although it was valid under Bangladeshi law, IC lacked capacity under English law, and recognising the marriage would expose him to the risk of sexual relations to which he could not consent, which would be a criminal offence in England. Recognising it would therefore be contrary to public policy. The court made a declaration of non recognition under the inherent jurisdiction, and the case is an important authority on protecting vulnerable adults from forced and inappropriate marriages.
Related cases on marriage, nullity and divorce
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Buffery v Buffery [1988] 2 FLR 365
- Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83
- Gereis v Yagoub [1997] 1 FLR 854
- Her Majesty's Attorney General v Akhter and Khan [2020] EWCA Civ 122, [2021] Fam 277
- Hirani v Hirani (1983) 4 FLR 232
- Hudson v Leigh [2009] EWHC 1306 (Fam), [2009] 2 FLR 1129
- Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
