Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:34:58.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOUR OF MARRIAGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2018

Rebecca Probert
Get access

Abstract

Eighteenth-century courts needed to rely on presumptions in favour of marriage for a number of reasons, some practical and some legal, but the misleading reporting of one leading nineteenth-century case, followed by institutional changes and a stronger focus on precedent, led to the original evidential assumptions being obscured. A further blurring of the different strands of the presumption occurred in the twenty-first century, leading to confusion in recent cases. Understanding how the much-misunderstood presumptions have developed reveals why they were needed, when they became decoupled from their evidential underpinnings, and how, when and why they should operate today.

Keywords

presumptionsmarriagecohabitation and reputationecclesiastical courts
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , July 2018 , pp. 375 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor of Law, University of Exeter.

I would like to thank Liam D'Arcy-Brown, Roger Leng, Tim Dodsworth, Mary Synge and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

1 Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 72 (London 2015)Google Scholar, paras. 8 and 7.

2 Keane, A. and McKeown, P., The Modern Law of Evidence, 11th ed. (Oxford 2016), 715Google Scholar. Such presumptions were preserved by the Civil Evidence Act 1995, s. 7(3)(b)(i).

3 Swadling, W., “Explaining Resulting Trusts” (2008) 124 L.Q.R. 72Google Scholar, at 74.

4 See e.g.Lowe, N.V. and Douglas, G., Bromley's Family Law, 11th ed. (Oxford 2015), 57Google Scholar; Al-Saedy v Musawi [2010] EWHC 3293 (Fam), at [50]; Hayatleh v Modfy [2017] EWCA Civ 70.

5 Gilmore, S. and Glennon, L., Hayes & Williams’ Family Law, 5th ed. (Oxford 2016), 16Google Scholar; Malek, H.M. (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 19th ed. (London 2017)Google Scholar, para. 6.25.

6 See e.g. Herring, J., Family Law, 8th ed. (Harlow 2017), 80Google Scholar, suggesting that the law “sometimes” presumes a couple to be married if they “live together, believe themselves to be married, and present themselves as married”; Lowe and Douglas, Bromley's Family Law, p. 56.

7 C.A.O. v Bath [2000] 1 F.L.R. 8; A.A.A. v A.S.H. [2009] EWHC 636; Dukali v Lamrani [2012] EWHC 1748 (Fam); M.A. v J.A. [2012] EWHC 2219 (Fam); Hayatleh [2017] EWCA Civ 70.

8 Borkowski, A., “The Presumption of Marriage” [2002] C.F.L.Q. 251, at 266Google Scholar.

9 Wilkinson v Payne (1791) 4 T.R. 468; 100 E.R. 1123; In re Shephard [1904] 1 Ch. 456.

10 Piers v Piers (1849) 2 H.L. Cas. 331, 9 E.R. 1118.

11 Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath [2000] 1 F.L.R. 8.

12 Hayatleh [2017] EWCA Civ 70.

13 Ibid., at para [28].

14 Probert, R., Marriage Law and Practice in the Long Eighteenth Century: A Reassessment (Cambridge 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Probert, R., The Legal Regulation of Cohabitation: From Fornicators to Family (Cambridge 2012)Google Scholar.

16 Brown, R.L., “The Rise and Fall of the Fleet Marriages” in Outhwaite, R.B. (ed.), Marriage and Society (London 1981)Google Scholar. See also Plunkett v Sharpe (1753) 1 Lee 440, 161 E.R. 163; Conran v Lowe (1754) 1 Lee 629, 161 E.R. 230; Lawrence v Dixon (1792) Peake 185, 170 E.R. 123.

17 St. Devereux v Much Dew Church (1762) 1 Wm Bl. 367, 96 E.R. 205.

18 See e.g. Hervey v Hervey (1773) 2 Wm Bl. 877, 96 E.R. 516.

19 Walton v Rider (1752) 1 Lee 16, 161 E.R. 7 (jactitation); Grant v Grant (1754) 1 Lee 592, 161 E.R. 217 (restitution). See also the discussion in Conran (1754) 1 Lee 629, 161 E.R. 230.

20 Pouget v Tomkins (1812) 2 Hag. Con. 142, 161 E.R. 695; Meddowcroft v Gregory (1816) 2 Hag. Con. 207, 161 E.R. 717.

21 Green, falsely called Dalton, v Dalton (1822) 1 Add. 289, 162 E.R. 101.

22 Horner v Liddiard (1799) 1 Hag. Con. 337, 161 E.R. 573, 359.

23 Frankland v Nicholson (1805) 3 M. & S. 259n, 105 E.R. 607, 260.

24 R. v Longley (1794) 1 Phillim. 148n, 161 E.R. 943; Mather v Ney (1807) 3 M. & S. 265n, 105 E.R. 610; Fellowes v Stewart (1815) 2 Phill. 257, 161 E.R. 1136.

25 Agg v Davies (1816) 2 Phill. Ecc. 341, 161 E.R. 1164; Fielder v Smith (1816) 2 Hag. Con. 193, 161 E.R. 712; Heffer v Heffer (1812) 3 M. & S. 265n, 105 E.R. 611.

26 Diddear v Faucit (1821) 3 Phill. Ecc. 580, 161 E.R. 1421.

27 Mather (1807) 3 M. & S. 265n, 105 E.R. 610; Days v Jarvis (1814) 2 Hagg. C.R. 172.

28 Jones v Robinson (1815) 2 Phill. Ecc. 285, 161 E.R. 1146 (16-year marriage, children); Johnston v Parker (1819) 3 Phill. Ecc. 39, 161 E.R. 1251 (22-year marriage, seven children); Hayes v Watts (1819) 3 Phill. Ecc. 43, 161 E.R. 1252 (18-year marriage).

29 Alfray v Alfray (1758) 2 Lee 547, 161 E.R. 435.

30 Bond v Bond (1754) 2 Lee 45, 161 E.R. 258n.

31 Plunkett v Sharp (1754) 2 Lee 35, 161 E.R. 255.

32 Ibid., at p. 45.

33 Plunkett (1753) 1 Lee 271, 161 E.R. 100.

34 Northey v Cook (1824) 2 Add 294, 162 E.R. 302

35 Ibid., at p. 296. See also Fownes v Ettricke (1756) 2 Lee 257, 161 E.R. 333 (marriage alleged to have taken place 60 years earlier).

36 Fownes (1756) 2 Lee 257, 161 E.R. 333, 333. See also Eaton v Bright (1755) 2 Lee 83, 161 E.R. 272.

37 Respectively, to London in 1714 (TNA RG7/15, p. 24) and Luffincourt on 11 April 1718 (Ancestry.com. England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973).

38 Morris v Miller (1767) 1 Wm Bl. 633, 96 E.R. 366; Birt v Barlow (1779) 1 Doug. 171, 99 E.R. 113; Hemmings v Smith (1784) 4 Dougl. 33, 99 E.R. 753.

39 Sir Eure, S., Trials per pais, 5th ed. (London 1718), 8Google Scholar; Ilderton v Ilderton (1793) 2 H. Bl. 145, 126 E.R. 476.

40 After 1754 the common law courts claimed the right to interpret the statute rather than referring the matter to the church courts: see Chinham v Preston (1758) 1 Wm Bl. 192, 96 E.R. 104; R. v Northfield (1781) 2 Dougl. 659, 99 E.R. 418.

41 Nokes, G.D., “Evidence” in Graveson, R.H. and Crane, F.R. (eds.), A Century of Family Law (London 1957)Google Scholar.

42 See e.g. Leader v Barry (1795) 1 Esp. 353, 170 E.R. 382 (copy of marriage register from the Swedish ambassador's chapel in Paris not accepted).

43 Runnington, C., A Treatise on the Action of Ejectment (London 1781)Google Scholar; Doe d. Fleming v Fleming (1827) 4 Bing. 266, 103 E.R. 769; Doe d Earl of Egremont v Grazebrook (1843) 3 Gal. & Dav. 334.

44 Tracey v McArlton (1839) 7 Dowl. 532, 533. See also Evans v Morgan (1832) 2 Cr. & J. 453, 149 E.R. 192.

45 Clayton, J., Reports and Pleas of Assizes at York (Dublin 1741), 61–62Google Scholar. See also Strange, J., A Collection of Select Cases Relating to Evidence (London 1754), 79Google Scholar; Woodgate v Potts (1847) 2 Car. & Kir. 457, 175 E.R. 189.

46 R. v Hassall (1826) 2 C. & P. 434, 171 E.R. 196. Stronger evidence was provided in R. v Woodward (1838) 8 C. & P. 561, 173 E.R. 618.

47 R. v Inhabitants of St. Peter's in Worcestershire (1735) Burr. Sett. Cas. 25, No. 9. R. v Inhabitants of Bramley (1795) 6 T.R. 330, 101 E.R. 579, although cf. R. v The Inhabitants of Stockland (1762) Burr. Sett. Cas. 508, No. 163, 509.

48 “A Most Singular Case”, The Times, 10 November 1791.

49 Wilkinson (1791) 4 T.R. 468, 100 E.R. 1123, 470.

50 Ibid.

51 For a late example, see Doe d. Davies v Gatacre (1838) 8 C. & P. 578, 173 E.R. 625. By this time Fleet registers were not accepted as evidence: Read v Passer (1794) 1 Esp. 213, 170 E.R. 332.

52 Nissel, M., People Count: A History of the General Register Office (London 1987)Google Scholar.

53 See e.g. Montague v Montague (1824) 2 Add. 312, 162 E.R. 331.

54 Evidence Act 1851, s. 1; Evidence Amendment Act 1853, s. 1.

55 Probert, R., “When Are We Married? Exporting the Common Law of Marriage Across the Empire” in Moses, J. (ed.), Marriage, Law and Modernity: Global Histories (London 2017)Google Scholar.

56 Marriage Act 1823, s. 22. See also Marriage Act 1836, s. 42, which applied to the new modes of marrying introduced by that act.

57 Tongue v Allen (1835) 1 Curt. 38, 163 E.R. 13; Tooth v Barrow (1854) Ecc. & Ad. 371, 164 E.R. 214; Wormald v Neale and Wormald (1868) 19 L.T. 93.

58 Piers (1849) 2 H.L. Cas. 331, 9 E.R. 1118.

59 An Act to Prevent Clandestine Marriages, 1757.

60 This is the impression of the case given by the secondary literature: see e.g. Keane and McKeown, The Modern Law of Evidence, p. 719; Phipson on Evidence, para. 6.25.

61 “Marriages in the Isle of Man”, The Times, 20 March 1849, p. 7.

62 Morris v Davies (1837) 5 Cl. & Fin. 163; 7 E.R. 365.

63 Ibid., at p. 265.

64 Piers (1849) 2 H.L. Cas. 331, 9 E.R. 1118, 362.

65 Ibid., at p. 370.

66 Ibid., at p. 380.

67 Harrison v Southampton Corporation (1853) 4 De G. M. & G. 137, 43 E.R. 459; R. v Cresswell (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 446; Harrod v Harrod (1854) 1 K. & J. 4, 69 E.R. 344.

68 See e.g. Ryan v Ryan (1816) 2 Phill. 332, 161 E.R. 1161; Sullivan v Oldacre (1819) 3 Phill. 45, 161 E.R. 1253.

69 The Lauderdale Peerage (1885) 10 App. Cas. 692.

70 Ibid., at p. 742.

71 Harrison (1853) 4 De G. M. & G. 137, 43 E.R. 459.

72 Gompertz v Kensit (1871–72) L.R. 13 Eq. 369.

73 Ibid., at p. 375.

74 Ibid., at p. 377.

75 Goodman v Goodman (1859) 28 L.J. Ch. 745.

76 Collins v Bishop (1878) 48 L.J. Ch. 31, 33.

77 The Breadalbane Case; Campbell v Campbell (1867) L.R. 1 Sc. & Div. 182.

78 Ibid., at pp. 199–200.

79 De Thoren v A.G. (1876) 1 App. Cas. 686.

80 Ibid., at p. 690.

81 Lyle v Ellwood (1874) L.R. 19 Eq. 98.

82 Yeap Cheah Neo v Ong Cheng Neo (1874–75) L.R. 6 P.C. 381; Sastry Velaider Aronegary v Sembecutty Vaigalie (1881) 6 App. Cas. 364.

83 Collins (1878) 48 L.J. Ch. 31.

84 Ibid., at p. 33.

85 Ibid., at p. 32. However, more evidence might still be required where the interests of creditors were at stake: see e.g. Hamblin v Shelton (1862) 3 F. & F. 133, 176 E.R. 60.

86 Sichel v Lambert (1864) 15 C.B. (N.S.) 781, 143 E.R. 992; Collins (1878) 48 L.J. Ch. 31; The Lauderdale Peerage (1885) 10 App. Cas. 692; In re Ivory (1886) 2 T.L.R. 468.

87 See e.g. Fox v Bearblock (1881) 17 Ch. D. 429; Collins (1878) 48 L.J. Ch. 31; and In re Ivory (1886) 2 T.L.R. 468 (marriages alleged to have taken place in 1795–96, 1804 and 1830, respectively).

88 Elliott v Totnes Union (1892) 9 T.L.R. 35.

89 Andrewes v Uthwatt (1886) 2 T.L.R. 895; Murray v Milner (1879) 12 Ch. D. 845.

90 Respectively, to the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes and the Principal Probate Registry.

91 See e.g. Phillimore v Machon (1876) L.R. 1 P.D. 481, 487; G. v M. (1885) 10 App. Cas. 171.

92 Evans, J., “Change in the Doctrine of Precedent during the Nineteenth Century” in Goldstein, L. (ed.), Precedent in Law (Oxford 1987)Google Scholar.

93 Lyle (1874) L.R. 19 Eq. 98.

94 See e.g. Re Duvall, Duvall v Craddock (1892) 36 Sol. Jo. 398, noting that there was no need to go into the older cases. See also Re Thompson (1904) 91 L.T. 680, citing Lyle v Ellwood.

95 In re Shephard [1904] 1 Ch. 456.

96 Ibid., at p. 463.

97 Ibid., at p. 462.

98 Ibid., at pp. 463–64.

99 Re Haynes (1904) 94 L.T. 431; Re Thompson (1905) 91 L.T. 680.

100 Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 16 (London 1911)Google Scholar, paras [603] and [604].

101 The new court was directed to apply the same principles as had been developed by the ecclesiastical courts: Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, s. 12. For examples, see Holmes v Simmons (1868) L.R. 1 P. & D. 523; Greaves v Greaves (1869–72) L.R. 2 P.& D. 423.

102 Spivack v Spivack [1930] All E.R. Rep. 133; Hill v Hill [1959] 1 W.L.R. 127; Re Taylor (deceased) [1961] 1 All E.R. 55; Mahadervan v Mahadervan [1964] P. 233; cf. Goldstone v Goldstone (1922) 127 L.T. 32, which was one of the few cases to try to disentangle the different strands of authority.

103 The few examples include Re Taplin, Watson v Tate [1937] 3 All E.R. 105 (marriage alleged to have taken place in Australia in 1860); Poon v Tan (1974) 4 Fam. Law 161 (Chinese customary marriage in mid-1950s).

104 Re Taylor (deceased) [1961] 1 All E.R. 55. Reliance was – inevitably – placed on Piers and Shephard.

105 Cretney, S., Family Law in the Twentieth Century: A History (Oxford 2003), 99, 102–08Google Scholar.

106 Mahadervan [1964] P. 233; Kalinowska v Kalinowski (1964) 108 S.J. 260; Rumsey v Sterne (1967) 111 S.J. 113; Wicken v Wicken [1999] 2 W.L.R. 1166; cf. Collett v Collett [1968] P. 482.

107 Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath [2000] 1 F.L.R. 8.

108 A marriage explicitly cannot be challenged on the basis that the building in which it was solemnised was never certified as a place of religious worship, the precursor to being registered for marriage (Marriage Act 1949, s. 48(1)(c)), and there is nothing in s. 49 to invalidate a marriage on the basis that it has been celebrated in a place of worship that has not been registered for marriage.

109 The case had been argued on the issue of non-registration alone: see Wikeley, N., “Chief Adjudication Officer v Kirpal Kaur Bath” (2000) J.S.W.F.L. 313Google Scholar.

110 Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath [2000] 1 F.L.R. 8, 22.

111 Ibid., at p. 24.

112 See further R. Probert, “When Are We Married? Void, Non-Existent and Presumed Marriages” [2002] 22 L.S. 398.

113 See e.g. A.A.A. [2009] EWHC 636, at [70]; Dukali [2012] EWHC 1748 (Fam), at [33]; M.A. [2012] EWHC 2219 (Fam); Hayatleh [2017] EWCA Civ 70.

114 In A.A.A. v A.S.H. and Dukali v Lamrani the ceremonies in question would not have raised a presumption; in M.A. v J.A. the marriage was upheld on other grounds; and in Hayatleh v Modfy the period of cohabitation was deemed sufficient.

115 See further Probert, R., “Hayatleh v Modfy: Presuming the Validity of a Known Ceremony of Marriage” [2018] 30 C.F.L.Q. 61Google Scholar.

116 Martin v Myers [2004] EWHC 1947 (Ch).

117 A.-M. v A.-M. [2001] 2 F.L.R. 6.

118 Al-Saedy [2010] EWHC 3293 (Fam).

119 Probert, R., “The Evolving Concept of Non-Marriage” [2013] 25 C.F.L.Q. 314Google Scholar.

120 Gandhi v Patel [2002] 1 F.L.R. 603, at [40]; Dukali [2012] EWHC 1748 (Fam), at [35].

121 See e.g. Hudson v Leigh [2009] EWHC 1306 (Fam); G. v M. [2011] EWHC 2651 (Fam).

122 The Breadalbane Case (1867) L.R. 1 Sc. & Div. 182, 200.

123 Halsbury's Laws, para. 7.

124 Piers (1849) 2 H.L. Cas. 331, 9 E.R. 1118; Sastry Velaider Aronegary (1881) 6 App. Cas. 364; Hill [1959] 1 W.L.R. 127.

125 Rooker v Rooker and Newton (1863) 33 L.J.P.M.&.A. 42 (Virginia); Patrickson v Patrickson (1866) L.R. 1 P.& D. 86; The Breadalbane Case (1867) L.R. 1 Sc. & Div. 182; Lyle (1874) L.R. 19 Eq. 98; De Thoren (1876) 1 App. Cas. 686; and The Lauderdale Peerage (1885) 10 App. Cas. 692 (all Scotland).

126 Doe d. Fleming (1827) 4 Bing. 266, 103 E.R. 769; Doe d Earl of Egremont (1843) 3 Gal. & Dav. 334 (both ejectment cases).

127 Kalinowska (1964) 108 S.J. 260.

128 Ibid.

129 See e.g. Grant (1754) 1 Lee 592, 161 E.R. 217 (six-year gap between ceremony and litigation); Cunningham v Ross (1757) 2 Lee 478, 161 E.R. 411 (three-year gap between ceremony and litigation); The Lauderdale Peerage (1885) 10 App. Cas. 692.

130 For applications of the presumption to overseas marriage, see Pazpena de Vire v Pazpena de Vire [2001] 1 F.L.R. 460 (marriage by proxy in Uruguay upheld); Asaad v Kurter [2013] EWHC 3852 (Fam).

131 See e.g. M.A. [2012] EWHC 2219 (Fam).

132 Al-Saedy [2010] EWHC 3293 (Fam).

133 Ibid., at para. [58].

134 Halsbury's Laws, para. 8.

135 Re H. and A. (Children)(Paternity: Blood Tests) [2002] EWCA Civ 383.

136 Bradney, A., “Formalities to the Marriage Ceremony” (2000) 116 L.Q.R. 351Google Scholar.

137 Hamilton, C., Family, Law and Religion (London 1995)Google Scholar.