Galloway v Goldstein

A person can have only one marriage at a time. A later ceremony in another country has no legal effect where the earlier marriage remains valid, unless the earlier marriage was void or otherwise ineffective. A ceremony with the hallmarks of marriage may nevertheless be a non-marriage, assessed case by case by reference to its form, apparent hallmarks, the intentions and understanding of the participants, and the perceptions of those attending. Where the parties were already married and knew that the later ceremony could not confer marital status, the court may declare it to have been of no legal effect. A statutory declaration concerning the later ceremony may be appropriate where the policy underlying the statutory restriction on declarations of nullity does not apply.

The claimant and defendant, an English husband and an American wife, married in Connecticut on 29 April 1999. They later went through a second marriage ceremony in England on 30 May 1999, which was registered in England and Wales. Their marriage was dissolved by the Superior Court of Connecticut on 24 June 2004, without reference to the English ceremony.

The claimant applied without opposition for declarations under section 55(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1986 concerning the status of the English ceremony and the marriage after the Connecticut divorce. The central issues were whether two marriages could subsist, whether the English ceremony required a decree of nullity, and whether the requested statutory declaration was permissible.

1. The application succeeded. The court declared under section 55(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1986 that the marriage did not subsist on or after 24 June 2004, and further declared under its inherent jurisdiction that the English ceremony on 30 May 1999 was of no legal effect.

2. There can be only one marriage. A later marriage ceremony in another country has no legal effect unless the earlier marriage can be shown, for the purposes of English law, to have been void or of no legal effect. The law may recognise limping marriages and divorces, but it does not recognise a person as being twice validly married under two chronologically separated ceremonies.

3. The English ceremony was a non-marriage rather than a marriage requiring nullity. Applying the approach in Hudson v Leigh [2009] 2 FLR 1129, questionable ceremonies should be assessed case by case. Relevant considerations include whether the event purported to be lawful, whether it bore the hallmarks of marriage, whether the participants, particularly the officiant, intended and understood it to create marital status, and the reasonable perceptions of those attending. The parties’ knowledge that they were already married was decisive in showing that the English ceremony conferred no marital status.

4. The objection that section 58(5) prohibited the declaration was not decisive. Although the Treasury Solicitor considered that a decree of nullity under sections 1(5) and 15 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, using Part 7 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, was required, the court held that the policy underlying section 58(5) did not apply where financial relief had already been resolved and exhausted in the United States. A statutory declaration was therefore appropriate, reinforced by an inherent-jurisdiction declaration.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.