LJU4804
October/November PORTFOLIO 2026
Unique number:
Due date: 19 October 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Material validity
Hawaiian law governs the material validity of the Singhs’ marriage because South
African private international law ordinarily applies the lex loci celebrationis, meaning
the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.1
1.2 Marriage intended to avoid parental consent
The starting point remains Hawaiian law because the marriage took place in Hawaii.
Mrs Singh’s age and the parental consent requirement concern her capacity to
marry, so they form part of material validity rather than the ceremony itself. The fact
that the couple deliberately selected Hawaii makes the doctrine of fraus legis
relevant, but it does not settle the question on its own.1
, QUESTION 1
1.1 Material validity
Hawaiian law governs the material validity of the Singhs’ marriage because South
African private international law ordinarily applies the lex loci celebrationis, meaning
the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.1
1.2 Marriage intended to avoid parental consent
The starting point remains Hawaiian law because the marriage took place in Hawaii.
Mrs Singh’s age and the parental consent requirement concern her capacity to
marry, so they form part of material validity rather than the ceremony itself. The fact
that the couple deliberately selected Hawaii makes the doctrine of fraus legis
relevant, but it does not settle the question on its own.2
Fraus legis deals with a deliberate attempt to escape the legal rules which would
normally apply. In Pretorius v Pretorius the principle was accepted where a marriage
elsewhere was intended to avoid the requirements of the law of the forum, and at
least one spouse was domiciled within that forum when the marriage took place.3
The difficulty here is that neither spouse was domiciled in South Africa in December
2015. Their domicile was England, whose law is foreign law before a South African
court. The conventional South African exception therefore does not apply
automatically, even when the couple intended to avoid English parental consent.4
There is disagreement about whether the exception can extend to evasion of a
foreign law. A broader approach could permit the court to apply English law because
that was the law deliberately avoided, although this is not an established automatic
result.5
1
MM Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law: LJU4804 Study Guide (University of South Africa
2020) 68; Friedman v Friedman’s Executors and Others (1922) 43 NLR 259.
2
Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law 68–69.
3
Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O).
4
Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law 44, 69.
5
CF Forsyth, Private International Law (5th edn, Juta 2012), discussion of fraus legis, cited in
Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law 44.
October/November PORTFOLIO 2026
Unique number:
Due date: 19 October 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1 Material validity
Hawaiian law governs the material validity of the Singhs’ marriage because South
African private international law ordinarily applies the lex loci celebrationis, meaning
the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.1
1.2 Marriage intended to avoid parental consent
The starting point remains Hawaiian law because the marriage took place in Hawaii.
Mrs Singh’s age and the parental consent requirement concern her capacity to
marry, so they form part of material validity rather than the ceremony itself. The fact
that the couple deliberately selected Hawaii makes the doctrine of fraus legis
relevant, but it does not settle the question on its own.1
, QUESTION 1
1.1 Material validity
Hawaiian law governs the material validity of the Singhs’ marriage because South
African private international law ordinarily applies the lex loci celebrationis, meaning
the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.1
1.2 Marriage intended to avoid parental consent
The starting point remains Hawaiian law because the marriage took place in Hawaii.
Mrs Singh’s age and the parental consent requirement concern her capacity to
marry, so they form part of material validity rather than the ceremony itself. The fact
that the couple deliberately selected Hawaii makes the doctrine of fraus legis
relevant, but it does not settle the question on its own.2
Fraus legis deals with a deliberate attempt to escape the legal rules which would
normally apply. In Pretorius v Pretorius the principle was accepted where a marriage
elsewhere was intended to avoid the requirements of the law of the forum, and at
least one spouse was domiciled within that forum when the marriage took place.3
The difficulty here is that neither spouse was domiciled in South Africa in December
2015. Their domicile was England, whose law is foreign law before a South African
court. The conventional South African exception therefore does not apply
automatically, even when the couple intended to avoid English parental consent.4
There is disagreement about whether the exception can extend to evasion of a
foreign law. A broader approach could permit the court to apply English law because
that was the law deliberately avoided, although this is not an established automatic
result.5
1
MM Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law: LJU4804 Study Guide (University of South Africa
2020) 68; Friedman v Friedman’s Executors and Others (1922) 43 NLR 259.
2
Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law 68–69.
3
Pretorius v Pretorius 1948 (4) SA 144 (O).
4
Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law 44, 69.
5
CF Forsyth, Private International Law (5th edn, Juta 2012), discussion of fraus legis, cited in
Wethmar-Lemmer, Private International Law 44.
