Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath

Long cohabitation as husband and wife gives rise to a strong common-law presumption of marriage. The presumption extends to compliance with requirements for a valid marriage and is displaced only by compelling positive evidence to the contrary.

An irregular but bona fide religious ceremony followed by long cohabitation does not deprive the parties of that presumption merely because a procedural irregularity is alleged or established. The court should not put parties who underwent such a ceremony in a worse position than parties for whom no ceremony is proved.

The respondent underwent a Sikh marriage ceremony in London in 1956 and thereafter lived with her husband as wife and husband for 37 years. Following his death, she claimed a widow’s pension under section 38 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

The Social Security Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal because the temple was not registered for marriages and the ceremony had not been registered at a registry office. A Social Security Commissioner allowed her further appeal, holding that long cohabitation validated the marriage by the common-law presumption of marriage. The Chief Adjudication Officer appealed.

The central issue was whether the evidence of an irregular Sikh ceremony rebutted the presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Evans LJ and Robert Walker LJ each concluded that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation. Schiemann LJ agreed with both judgments, preferring Robert Walker LJ’s narrower reasoning.

2. The common-law presumption applies where parties have cohabited as husband and wife for a substantial period and have acquired that reputation. It may support an inference that the parties agreed to cohabit as married and that the formal requirements for a valid marriage were met. It is rebutted only by strong, compelling and positive evidence.

3. Per Robert Walker LJ, an irregular ceremony followed by long cohabitation should not be treated less favourably than a case in which there is no evidence of a ceremony. It would be contrary to the general policy of the law to deny the presumption merely because an irregular ceremony is proved. The evidence did not compellingly rebut the presumption here.

4. Evans LJ also held that section 49 of the Marriage Act 1949 did not render the marriage void. The parties had not knowingly and wilfully breached the statutory requirements. In his view, non-registration of an otherwise eligible place of worship did not, without an express statutory provision, make their good-faith ceremony void. Robert Walker LJ did not decide the wider question whether a ceremony marked by manifold irregularities, but not followed by long cohabitation, would be valid.

5. Decision R(G) 2/70 was distinguishable because it concerned a ceremony with positive evidence of more fundamental defects. To the extent that it treated any statutory non-compliance as making a marriage void without express statutory provision, Evans LJ expressed a provisional view that it was incorrect.

6. The Commissioner’s decision stood and the court expressed the expectation that the widow’s pension would be paid forthwith.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The Commissioner’s decision in favour of the respondent was upheld.

• Social Security Commissioner: Allowed the respondent’s appeal on 7 May 1998, holding that long cohabitation supported a presumption of marriage.

• Social Security Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the claim on 24 May 1995 on the basis that the Sikh temple was not registered under the Marriage Act 1949.