The High Court faced a complex case in which one party alleged that the couple was married in a civil ceremony while the other contended that it was a fraud and that someone had impersonated him. The question is pivotal as there are financial remedies at stake.
Background:
Ms. Z and Mr. Z were married according to the customs of Islam in August 1999. They are first cousins and both were divorced. Ms. Z had obtained an Islamic divorce following Sharia law before they were married as well as a civil divorce in 2005. They have two children.
Ms. Z claimed that she and Mr. Z had a civil marriage on 14 December 2009 at X Registry Office. She produced a marriage certificate “with what appeared to be Mr Z's signature” as conclusive evidence of their legal union. Mr. Z contested that he had attended the ceremony, arguing that an imposter was used.
In 2013, the parties separated. Mr. Z also married a second wife, Ms. Y, in an Islamic ceremony in 2009. In 2020, Mr. Z filed an application for a Child Arrangements Order (CAO) and a Prohibited Steps Order (PSO). In July 2021, Ms. Z made an application for a non-molestation order. In 2023, Mr. Z’s PSO was refused and an order was made for the second child to live with Ms. Z with indirect contact between that child and Mr. Z permitted.
The parties (Mr. Z & Ms. Z) were divorced under Islamic law in April 2022 and, in June 2022, Ms. Z made an application for divorce under UK law.
Decision:
The High Court found in favour of Ms. Z and concluded that a civil marriage had indeed taken place. For a marriage to be legally valid in England and Wales, it must comply with the formal requirements of the Marriage Act 1949, including registration. For a properly conducted ceremony to have taken place, it must be witnessed by two persons and the marriage certificate must be signed.
The Court concluded that the marriage certificate and entry into the register provided strong prima facie evidence. Mr. Justice Trowell reached his conclusion based on the fact that the best evidence of a valid marriage is the official marriage certificate, as concluded in L-K v K (No. 3) [2006]. However, the marriage certificate alone is not sufficient, especially where there is evidence suggesting a fraudulent registration, as emphasised in Islam v Islam [2003]. As a result, the Court had to consider the evidential weight of the marriage certificate against allegations of fraud and also assess witness credibility and the absence of corroborative evidence, including photographs.
The Judge was not convinced by the evidence given to support the imposter claim. The Court noted that registrars verify identity and it is unlikely they would be fooled by an imposter. Regarding the lack of photographs or family witnesses, the Court was convinced by Ms. Z’s explanation that civil marriages are not culturally significant and thus not celebrated in Islamic society. However, the Judge also noted some ‘odd features’, including the impossibility of locating witnesses to the ceremony. However, these anomalies did “not outweigh the strong evidence of the ceremony provided by the certificate and entry in the register”. The Court also noted that pursuing a divorce after years of litigation raises further doubts.
Implications:
This case serves as a cautionary tale in proving that a valid marriage took place. It also underscores the evidential burden on the party alleging a fraudulent marriage. Marriage certificates and registries offer strong prima facie evidence that a marriage did occur, although they can be rebutted by sufficient evidence. While marriage certificates serve as powerful evidence, they are nonetheless not immune to challenge.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Z did not obtain an analysis from a handwriting expert to prove that there was an imposter. The judgement also highlights that courts might be willing to acknowledge that civil marriages might only be an administrative formality in some cultures and would not draw big celebrations or family involvement.
Finally, couples need to formalise their marriage, otherwise they might well find themselves in a very difficult situation regarding financial remedies.
