Sheffield City Council v E
The capacity to marry depends on whether a person understands the nature of the marriage contract and its duties and responsibilities, which is not a demanding test.
Facts
E was a 21 year old woman with learning difficulties, who was being looked after by the local council. She formed a relationship with a 37 year old man with a history of sexual violence, and they planned to marry. The council applied to the court for declarations that E lacked capacity to marry, and that it was not in her best interests to marry him.
Legal principle
Munby J held that the question of capacity to marry is not whether it was wise for E to marry the man, but whether she had capacity to marry at all, which depends on whether she understood the nature of the marriage contract. He said that the contract of marriage is in essence a simple one, which does not require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend, and that a person has capacity to marry if he or she understands the duties and responsibilities that normally attach to marriage, such as the duty to live together and to love and care for each other. The court has no jurisdiction to decide whether marriage would be in the best interests of a person who has capacity.
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.
