Nullity

On 6 April 2022 the provisions of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) came into effect. DDSA 2020 does not make substantive changes to the law regarding nullity proceedings, the grounds on which nullity proceedings may be brought remain unchanged. There are, however, some consequential changes to the procedure affecting applications for a nullity order or nullity of marriage order that are issued on or after 6 April 2022. It is important to ensure that the correct procedure is followed depending on when the application was issued.

Void and voidable marriages

A marriage may be annulled if the marriage is void or voidable:

  1. a void marriage is one that is regarded by the court as never having taken place and is void at its inception—a decree is simply declaratory

  2. a voidable marriage is one that will be regarded as a valid marriage subsisting until a decree annulling it has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) sets out the grounds on which a marriage may be void or voidable. Corresponding provisions are set out in the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents