Re: RA (Appeal: Validity of a Marriage: Finding of Fact)

This case concerned an appeal against a decision on the validity of a marriage certificate, which had significant implications for divorce and financial relief proceedings.

TLDR:

• Appellant sought to validate a marriage certificate from 2009.
• Respondent denied presence at the alleged civil marriage ceremony.
• District Judge initially found the marriage invalid; High Court overturned this decision.

The parties began their relationship in 1995 and were married Islamically on 4 August 1999. The Appellant claimed that they were also married in a civil ceremony at X Registry Office on 14 December 2009, which the Respondent denied. The couple separated in 2013, and the Appellant sought an Islamic divorce in January 2022, which was granted in April 2022.

District Judge Buckley initially found that the Respondent was not present at the marriage on 14 December 2009, declaring the marriage invalid. Consequently, the Appellant's divorce petition and application for financial remedy were dismissed. The Appellant sought to appeal this decision.

The High Court, presided over by Ms Justice Henke, heard the appeal on 20-21 March 2024. The Appellant argued that the District Judge had erred in law by not relying on the marriage certificate and by reversing the burden of proof. The Respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the District Judge's findings were based on a comprehensive review of evidence.

Ms Justice Henke found that the District Judge's decision was flawed due to inconsistencies in the findings regarding the marriage certificate's authenticity and the Respondent's presence. The High Court emphasized that the best evidence of a marriage is a certificate, which should be considered prima facie evidence unless proven otherwise.

The High Court also noted that the District Judge failed to adequately consider the Respondent's previous conviction for perverting the course of justice, which could impact his credibility. Additionally, the motivations of the parties and the context of their relationship were not sufficiently factored into the initial judgment.

As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Judge's order, and remitted the case for a re-hearing by a High Court Judge of the Family Division. The pre-trial review was scheduled for 1 July 2024 before Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles.

Legal representatives: The Appellant appearing as a Litigant in Person, Ravi Sethi (instructed under the Direct Access Scheme) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Ms Justice Henke

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1144 (Fam)