Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 1999 |
| Date | 22 October 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal.
Before Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Schiemann and Lord Justice Robert Walker
Matrimonial law - irregular marriage ceremony - presumption of valid marriage
Where there was an irregular marriage ceremony followed by a period of long cohabitation, it would be contrary to the general policy of the law to refuse to extend to the parties the benefit of a presumption of marriage, which would apply to them if there were no evidence of any ceremony at all.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment when it dismissed the appeal of the Chief Adjudication Officer from the decision of a social security commissioner, Mr M. J. Goodman, on May 7, 1998, allowing the appeal of the claimant, Mrs Kirpal Kaur Bath, for widow's benefit, from the decision of a social security appeal tribunal which dismissed her appeal from an adjudication officer on August 12, 1994, who held that it was not established and could not be presumed that there was a valid marriage because there was no evidence of a valid ceremony in accordance with the Marriage Act 1949.
The claimant, now aged 59, went through a Sikh marriage in 1956 aged 16 with Zora Singh Bath, then aged 19, at the Sikh temple, the Central Gurdwara, 79 Sinclair Road, West Kensington, London, at a marriage ceremony administered by a Sikh priest in accordance with Sikh custom and religion.
They lived together as man and wife for 37 years until his death in January 1994. The temple moved to a new address some time between 1956 and 1983 at which latter date it was registered for marriages. There was some evidence that it was not a registered building for performing marriages in 1956.
Mr Richard McManus, QC, for the Chief Adjudication Officer; the claimant was not present or represented.
LORD JUSTICE EVANS said that the Chief Adjudication Officer's submission was that the presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation was rebutted by the tribunal's finding that the temple where the marriage took place in 1956 was not registered for such purpose at that date under the 1949 Act so that the ceremony relied on was invalid.
His Lordship said that section 49 of the 1949 Act rendered a marriage void, notwithstanding the exchange of vows, if the parties to it had "knowily and wilfully" failed to comply with the relevant statutory provisions.
There could be no suggestion in the evidence that either of the couple was aware of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al-Saedy v Musawi
...with varying degrees of sophistication. For these purposes, it suffices to refer to paragraph 21 of the Judgment of Evans LJ in Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath 2000 1FLR 8 where, having considered various authorities, he said "… in my judgment, these authorities show that the common law p......
-
AAA v ASH and Others
...and others regarded them as man and wife (see A-M v A-M (Divorce: Jurisdiction: Validity of Marriage) (2001) 2 FLR 6 and Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath (2000) 1 FLR 8 at para 31). 71 I shall return to the question of the right to determine where the child lives under Article 5. It is suf......
-
A v A (Attorney General intervening) [Family Division]
...person having authority to perform the marriage ceremony". 63 A modern application of the presumption in favour of marriage is Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath [2000] 1 FLR 8, a decision on which Miss Proops relies heavily. In that case a claim for a widow's pension had been refused on the......
-
Asma Dukali (Applicant) Mohamed Lamrani (Respondent) HM Attorney General (Intervener)
...Mr John Fox, who appears on behalf of the wife, has relied most heavily on the earlier authority of the Court of Appeal in Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath [2000] 1 FLR 8. In that case, the parties had gone through a Sikh marriage ceremony in a Sikh temple in London in 1956. They lived tog......
-
Nullity
...R v Bham [1966] 1 QB 159.18. See Ibid., and R v Ali Mohamed (1943) unreported, quoted in Bham.19. See Chief Adjudication Ofcer v Bath 2000 1 FLR 8, Abassi v Abassi 2006 EWCA 355 and Brown v Milwood 2006 EWHC 642.20. See Maintenance Act and Family Law in Jamaica 38Nevertheless, there may be......