FAMILY LAW PQ SUMMARY NOTES
TIPS:
o Roughly 2 hrs for PQ, 1 hr for essay
o In some PQs it matters what order issues are done in, if it doesn’t matter do it in
the order they are asked
o PQs where order matters
If about legal parentage and child arrangements - do legal parentage first
(legal standing for contact orders e.g. presumption in favour of contact)
If DA, deal with it first, informs CAO decisions and 'conduct' for FOs (coercive
control)
LA + potential private child ordering: do care proceedings first bc would
trump private orders
Do validity of marriage before FOs - may not have access to these
ADULT RELATIONSHIPS - MARRIAGE/CP:
MARRIAGE/CP :
marriage is the voluntary union for life on 1 man and 1 woman to the exclusion of all
others (*Hyde v Hyde)
Voidable Grounds (s.12 MCA, s.50 CPA)
Lack of valid consent (s.12(1)(c) MCA, s.50(1)(a) CPA)
Duress - will overborne
threats/pressure overbears will (*Hirani v Hirani 19 yr old, fam chose
partner, if don’t marry leave, petition after 6wks)
needs some element of fear (*Singh v Singh familial pressure insufficient)
fear, subtle, pervasive + powerful influence based on personal
affection/duty + religion/social/cultural convention (*NS v MI
parent/dominant relative)
≠ forced consent (*P v R - push head to fake consent, threat violence
trapped abroad, forced marriage)
Consent in limited sense, irrelevant parties didn’t consider it a marriage and
had it registered (*Vervaeke v Smith - Belgian prostitute married A for
passport, annulment rejected for B + inheritance )
**Scott v Sebright, Re SK
Mistake - must be fundamental
≠ as to attributes, must be identity (C v C (NZ) - valid consent to man in front
of you, regardless of wealth misconception)
But distinction between attributes + identity isn't always clear (Militante v
Ogunwomoju- illegal migrant void bc assumed identity of someone legally
living in the UK)
as to nature suffices (Valier v Valier - misunderstood ceremony bc of
language barrier, lack mental capacity totally unaware contracting to marry)
Unsoundness of mind - capacity
Understand nature of marriage generally ≠ this one, essence of marriage is
simple ≠ need high intellect to understand, love each other/live together,
, reciprocal obligation (*Sheffield City Council v E - mentally 13, physical
challenges had capacity to marry sex offender)
Drunkenness irrelevant unless so drunk ≠ know what they're doing (Sullivan
v Sullivan)
Mental disorder unfit (s.12(1)(d) MCA, s.50(1)(b) CPA)
Gender recognition
Interim certificate (s.12(1)(g) MCA, s.50(1)(d) CPA)
Acquired gender (s.12(1)(h) MCA, s.50(1)(e) CPA)
Pregnant by 3rd party (s.12(1)(f) MCA, s.50(1)(c) CPA)
Venereal disease - M only (s.12(1)(e) MCA)
Non-consummation - M only
Ordinary, complete intercourse ≠ impartial, penetration of vagina by penis (D-E v A-
G)
≠ need ejaculation/intention to procreate (Clarke (Otherwise Talbott) v Clarke)
Incapacity (s.12(1)(a) MCA)
Physical - refusing safe surgery to cure can be wilful refusal
Psychological - 'frigidity' (Clarke )
Wilful refusal - refuse w/out cause (s.12(1)(b) MCA)
Not Stop + start, marriage holistically (Horton v Horton - delayed by war,
wife anxiety to fix issue)
Refusing party can bring action for nullity
**Potter v Potter, Kaur v Singh
o NB bars to relief (s.13 MCA; s.51 CPA)
S.13(1); s.50(1) - ≠ make order if A knew could get nullity order (knew facts making
marriage voidable), A acted in a way leading R to reasonably believe nullity wont be
sought + unjust to R to grant order
S.13(2); s51(2) - 3 yrs for consent, mental disorder, venereal disease, pregnancy,
gender recognition
S.13(2A); s.51(5) - 6mth bar for gender interim certificate
Void Grounds (s.11 MCA, s.49 CPA)
Prohibited degrees of relationship (s.11(1)(a)(i) MCA, s.49(1)(a) CPA)
o Parent-child (inc adoptive)
o Grandparent-grandchild
o Siblings
o Aunt/uncle - neice/nephew
o Qualified prohibitions
Child-parent's former spouse/CP
Child-Grandparent's former spouse/CP
allowed IF: both over 21 + younger never a child of the family (live
in same house before 18) (Sch 1 Part 1 para 2 CPA)
Both not over 18
Either party already married (bigamy is a criminal offence)
, Polygamy rules breached
Formalities disregarded (Marriage Act 1949, s.49 (hetero), s.49A (same sex))
o 3 routes
Religious (Anglican) - Anglican preliminaries + ceremony
Civil - civil preliminaries + ceremony
Mixed - civil preliminaries + religious ceremony
o Preliminary Procedure: give public notice of intention to marry/register CP,
allow interested parties to lodge objections
o Civil/other religions - marriage certificate
o Anglican - publication of bans (in church) or get license
o Ceremony: time (8am-6pm) + location (open to public), identity of
celebrant, presence of witnesses, exchange of particular words (marriage)
sign CP doc (CP)
o Civil: location (civil reg office/other approved premises e.g. stately
home), time (8am-6pm) 2 witnesses + registrar, proscribed words
(declare capacity + freedom to marry, taking each other as spouse)
o Anglican: same (time, ceremony + witnesses) and authorised
celebrant
o Quaker/Jewish: faith practices, location of faith (need public
accessibility)
o Other religions: location of religious worship if registered (few
mosques), civil registrar or member of faith group authorised to
conduct marriages (if unauthorised need civil marriage too)
o Registration requirements: record + prove existence of marriage/CP
(creates + records legal status)
o Void if:
o Knowingly + wilfully ≠ comply w ceremony/preliminaries
o Location other than specified in original notice
o time after preliminaries during which marriage/CP may be
celebrated has expired
o w/out properly authorised celebrant/registrar present
o Only Russian orthodox marriage priest warned need civil marriage is
void (Gereis v Yagoub)
Non-Qualifying Ceremony:
Failed attempt at a marriage
Not intention of parties/understanding to marry (*Hudson v Leigh - non-Q, Christian
ceremony abroad bc wife wanted, husband didn’t, agreed w/ celebrant they knew
not creating legal marriage, split before civil ceremony in UK, wife denied £
remedies bc non-Q)
4 factors, whether:
It bore all or enough of the hallmarks of marriage
the ceremony/event set out and purported to be a lawful marriage
the 3 key participants (esp official) believed, intended and understood ceremony
as giving rise to status of lawful marriage
Such were the reasonable perceptions, understandings and beliefs of those in
attendance
Later acts are irrelevant (try to have civil ceremony), ≠ change nature of (purely
religious) ceremony itself (*Akhter v Khan - unregistered restaurant, unauthorized
imam emphasized need civil ceremony + agree but never happened, no
, certificate/notice to registrar, no £ remedy, child BI cant turn non-Q into valid
marriage bc action doesn’t concern children)
No formalities/solemn element not close to marriage (prior knowledge of other
spouse's existing marriage defeats good faith protection Hindu wedding restaurant,
no spousal status for inheritance act Gandhi v Patel)
Forced marriage/lack of consent (time barred from nullity) cl coerced/didnt
understand ceremony, 3 yr time limit to apply for nullity has passed, court use
jurisdiction to declare marriage 'never existed' as a marriage capable of recognition
in E/W rather than declaring void from the start (B v I).
**AM v A
Presumption of Marriage:
Couple live together, present/believe themselves as married law sometimes gives
presumption
Need clear + positive evidence against marriage to rebut
≠ apply to void marriage (e.g. unauthorised location)
Only use if v clearly looks like Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath
made sense here, cant prove void marriage
live as spouses for 40 yrs, Sikh ceremony ≠ fulfil all requirements no
certificate/evidence of valid marriage, unfair state refusal (widower's pension)
Presumed they went under valid ceremony unless proved otherwise (not bc they
cohabit)
No presumption evidence formalities not met, but can declare ceremony valid bc
conducted in authorised building by authorised person and parties didn’t knowingly
and wilfully not comply (MA v JA)
UNMARRIED/COHABS:
Cohabs:
Definition depends on purpose
o Kimber v Kimber - for receipt of social benefits
live under same roof, share tasks of daily life, some
stability/permanence to relationship, financial interdependence,
sexual relationship, opinion of ordinary person they're together, if
there are children
Don’t need all
Saves money for state
o General relationship between them paramount consideration, financially
supportive, publicly describe themselves as husband and wife, admirable
signposts of husband wife relationship, sexual relationship important
signpost (Re J (Income Support Cohab) )
Non-Recognised (LATs)
Committed relationship but ≠ cohab
o Kotke v Saffarni - cohab need degree of domestic interaction, possibly
member of household despite periodical absence
o Have baby, share weekend expenses + speak abt buying house
together insufficient, want but not acc living together merely share
relationship
o Cant live together maintain separate houses
o live under same roof ≠ same household
TIPS:
o Roughly 2 hrs for PQ, 1 hr for essay
o In some PQs it matters what order issues are done in, if it doesn’t matter do it in
the order they are asked
o PQs where order matters
If about legal parentage and child arrangements - do legal parentage first
(legal standing for contact orders e.g. presumption in favour of contact)
If DA, deal with it first, informs CAO decisions and 'conduct' for FOs (coercive
control)
LA + potential private child ordering: do care proceedings first bc would
trump private orders
Do validity of marriage before FOs - may not have access to these
ADULT RELATIONSHIPS - MARRIAGE/CP:
MARRIAGE/CP :
marriage is the voluntary union for life on 1 man and 1 woman to the exclusion of all
others (*Hyde v Hyde)
Voidable Grounds (s.12 MCA, s.50 CPA)
Lack of valid consent (s.12(1)(c) MCA, s.50(1)(a) CPA)
Duress - will overborne
threats/pressure overbears will (*Hirani v Hirani 19 yr old, fam chose
partner, if don’t marry leave, petition after 6wks)
needs some element of fear (*Singh v Singh familial pressure insufficient)
fear, subtle, pervasive + powerful influence based on personal
affection/duty + religion/social/cultural convention (*NS v MI
parent/dominant relative)
≠ forced consent (*P v R - push head to fake consent, threat violence
trapped abroad, forced marriage)
Consent in limited sense, irrelevant parties didn’t consider it a marriage and
had it registered (*Vervaeke v Smith - Belgian prostitute married A for
passport, annulment rejected for B + inheritance )
**Scott v Sebright, Re SK
Mistake - must be fundamental
≠ as to attributes, must be identity (C v C (NZ) - valid consent to man in front
of you, regardless of wealth misconception)
But distinction between attributes + identity isn't always clear (Militante v
Ogunwomoju- illegal migrant void bc assumed identity of someone legally
living in the UK)
as to nature suffices (Valier v Valier - misunderstood ceremony bc of
language barrier, lack mental capacity totally unaware contracting to marry)
Unsoundness of mind - capacity
Understand nature of marriage generally ≠ this one, essence of marriage is
simple ≠ need high intellect to understand, love each other/live together,
, reciprocal obligation (*Sheffield City Council v E - mentally 13, physical
challenges had capacity to marry sex offender)
Drunkenness irrelevant unless so drunk ≠ know what they're doing (Sullivan
v Sullivan)
Mental disorder unfit (s.12(1)(d) MCA, s.50(1)(b) CPA)
Gender recognition
Interim certificate (s.12(1)(g) MCA, s.50(1)(d) CPA)
Acquired gender (s.12(1)(h) MCA, s.50(1)(e) CPA)
Pregnant by 3rd party (s.12(1)(f) MCA, s.50(1)(c) CPA)
Venereal disease - M only (s.12(1)(e) MCA)
Non-consummation - M only
Ordinary, complete intercourse ≠ impartial, penetration of vagina by penis (D-E v A-
G)
≠ need ejaculation/intention to procreate (Clarke (Otherwise Talbott) v Clarke)
Incapacity (s.12(1)(a) MCA)
Physical - refusing safe surgery to cure can be wilful refusal
Psychological - 'frigidity' (Clarke )
Wilful refusal - refuse w/out cause (s.12(1)(b) MCA)
Not Stop + start, marriage holistically (Horton v Horton - delayed by war,
wife anxiety to fix issue)
Refusing party can bring action for nullity
**Potter v Potter, Kaur v Singh
o NB bars to relief (s.13 MCA; s.51 CPA)
S.13(1); s.50(1) - ≠ make order if A knew could get nullity order (knew facts making
marriage voidable), A acted in a way leading R to reasonably believe nullity wont be
sought + unjust to R to grant order
S.13(2); s51(2) - 3 yrs for consent, mental disorder, venereal disease, pregnancy,
gender recognition
S.13(2A); s.51(5) - 6mth bar for gender interim certificate
Void Grounds (s.11 MCA, s.49 CPA)
Prohibited degrees of relationship (s.11(1)(a)(i) MCA, s.49(1)(a) CPA)
o Parent-child (inc adoptive)
o Grandparent-grandchild
o Siblings
o Aunt/uncle - neice/nephew
o Qualified prohibitions
Child-parent's former spouse/CP
Child-Grandparent's former spouse/CP
allowed IF: both over 21 + younger never a child of the family (live
in same house before 18) (Sch 1 Part 1 para 2 CPA)
Both not over 18
Either party already married (bigamy is a criminal offence)
, Polygamy rules breached
Formalities disregarded (Marriage Act 1949, s.49 (hetero), s.49A (same sex))
o 3 routes
Religious (Anglican) - Anglican preliminaries + ceremony
Civil - civil preliminaries + ceremony
Mixed - civil preliminaries + religious ceremony
o Preliminary Procedure: give public notice of intention to marry/register CP,
allow interested parties to lodge objections
o Civil/other religions - marriage certificate
o Anglican - publication of bans (in church) or get license
o Ceremony: time (8am-6pm) + location (open to public), identity of
celebrant, presence of witnesses, exchange of particular words (marriage)
sign CP doc (CP)
o Civil: location (civil reg office/other approved premises e.g. stately
home), time (8am-6pm) 2 witnesses + registrar, proscribed words
(declare capacity + freedom to marry, taking each other as spouse)
o Anglican: same (time, ceremony + witnesses) and authorised
celebrant
o Quaker/Jewish: faith practices, location of faith (need public
accessibility)
o Other religions: location of religious worship if registered (few
mosques), civil registrar or member of faith group authorised to
conduct marriages (if unauthorised need civil marriage too)
o Registration requirements: record + prove existence of marriage/CP
(creates + records legal status)
o Void if:
o Knowingly + wilfully ≠ comply w ceremony/preliminaries
o Location other than specified in original notice
o time after preliminaries during which marriage/CP may be
celebrated has expired
o w/out properly authorised celebrant/registrar present
o Only Russian orthodox marriage priest warned need civil marriage is
void (Gereis v Yagoub)
Non-Qualifying Ceremony:
Failed attempt at a marriage
Not intention of parties/understanding to marry (*Hudson v Leigh - non-Q, Christian
ceremony abroad bc wife wanted, husband didn’t, agreed w/ celebrant they knew
not creating legal marriage, split before civil ceremony in UK, wife denied £
remedies bc non-Q)
4 factors, whether:
It bore all or enough of the hallmarks of marriage
the ceremony/event set out and purported to be a lawful marriage
the 3 key participants (esp official) believed, intended and understood ceremony
as giving rise to status of lawful marriage
Such were the reasonable perceptions, understandings and beliefs of those in
attendance
Later acts are irrelevant (try to have civil ceremony), ≠ change nature of (purely
religious) ceremony itself (*Akhter v Khan - unregistered restaurant, unauthorized
imam emphasized need civil ceremony + agree but never happened, no
, certificate/notice to registrar, no £ remedy, child BI cant turn non-Q into valid
marriage bc action doesn’t concern children)
No formalities/solemn element not close to marriage (prior knowledge of other
spouse's existing marriage defeats good faith protection Hindu wedding restaurant,
no spousal status for inheritance act Gandhi v Patel)
Forced marriage/lack of consent (time barred from nullity) cl coerced/didnt
understand ceremony, 3 yr time limit to apply for nullity has passed, court use
jurisdiction to declare marriage 'never existed' as a marriage capable of recognition
in E/W rather than declaring void from the start (B v I).
**AM v A
Presumption of Marriage:
Couple live together, present/believe themselves as married law sometimes gives
presumption
Need clear + positive evidence against marriage to rebut
≠ apply to void marriage (e.g. unauthorised location)
Only use if v clearly looks like Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath
made sense here, cant prove void marriage
live as spouses for 40 yrs, Sikh ceremony ≠ fulfil all requirements no
certificate/evidence of valid marriage, unfair state refusal (widower's pension)
Presumed they went under valid ceremony unless proved otherwise (not bc they
cohabit)
No presumption evidence formalities not met, but can declare ceremony valid bc
conducted in authorised building by authorised person and parties didn’t knowingly
and wilfully not comply (MA v JA)
UNMARRIED/COHABS:
Cohabs:
Definition depends on purpose
o Kimber v Kimber - for receipt of social benefits
live under same roof, share tasks of daily life, some
stability/permanence to relationship, financial interdependence,
sexual relationship, opinion of ordinary person they're together, if
there are children
Don’t need all
Saves money for state
o General relationship between them paramount consideration, financially
supportive, publicly describe themselves as husband and wife, admirable
signposts of husband wife relationship, sexual relationship important
signpost (Re J (Income Support Cohab) )
Non-Recognised (LATs)
Committed relationship but ≠ cohab
o Kotke v Saffarni - cohab need degree of domestic interaction, possibly
member of household despite periodical absence
o Have baby, share weekend expenses + speak abt buying house
together insufficient, want but not acc living together merely share
relationship
o Cant live together maintain separate houses
o live under same roof ≠ same household
