Wilkinson v Kitzinger
Before same sex marriage was introduced, a same sex marriage validly entered into abroad was recognised in England only as a civil partnership, and this did not breach the couple's human rights.
Facts
Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, two British academics, married in British Columbia, Canada, where same sex marriage was lawful. They asked the English court for a declaration that their marriage was valid in England. Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, a same sex marriage entered into abroad was treated as a civil partnership in England. They argued that refusing to recognise their marriage as a marriage breached their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal principle
Sir Mark Potter P held that the marriage could be recognised only as a civil partnership, and that this did not breach their Convention rights. He said that the European Court of Human Rights had held that article 12, the right to marry, referred to marriage between a man and a woman, and that the government was entitled to provide for same sex couples through civil partnership, which gave them the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, while preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The law was later changed by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.
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.
