Szechter v Szechter
A marriage entered into to escape imprisonment and danger to health was voidable for duress, because the petitioner's consent was obtained by fear of immediate danger to life, limb or liberty.
Facts
Nina, a young Polish woman, was arrested and imprisoned in Poland for anti state activities, and her health deteriorated badly. Dr Szechter, a professor, divorced his wife and married Nina in prison, so that she would be released and they could all leave Poland, which they did. Once in England, Nina petitioned for a decree of nullity on the ground that she had not freely consented to the marriage, so that Dr Szechter could remarry his first wife.
Legal principle
Simon P granted the decree of nullity. He said that, to vitiate a marriage on the ground of duress, it must 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. Nina had married only to escape from prison, where her life and health were in danger, so her consent was not real. The strict test was relaxed in Hirani v Hirani.
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.
