Coventry City Council v MK & Ors

For a marriage conducted across jurisdictions, the court must identify the lex loci celebrationis and determine formal validity under the law of that place. The English court then characterises the effect of any defect by reference to English legal concepts and decides what remedy, if any, English law provides.

A ceremony may be treated as a non-marriage or non-qualifying ceremony where its formal defects are fundamental, rather than as a void marriage requiring nullity proceedings. A declaration of non-recognition may be made on public policy grounds to provide certainty and protection, but the decision is fact-specific and does not establish a general rule.

These linked Court of Protection and Family Division proceedings concerned a purported marriage conducted by WhatsApp between MK, who lived in England, and A, who was in Pakistan. MK’s grandfather purported to act as his proxy at a ceremony in Pakistan.

The parties did not dispute that the marriage formalities were defective or that MK lacked capacity to marry. The court had to determine the place of celebration, the validity and legal character of the ceremony, the appropriate remedy, the terms of a Forced Marriage Protection Order, MK’s best interests and the allocation of expert costs.

1. Place of celebration. The lex loci celebrationis was Pakistan. The ceremony, A, the imam and the intended proxy were in Pakistan. MK’s participation by WhatsApp was insufficient to make England the place of celebration.
2. Formal validity. Under Pakistani law, a WhatsApp marriage required a validly appointed vakil. MK’s grandfather had not been validly appointed by a properly attested special power of attorney. The Nikah Nama was also materially incomplete, including deficiencies concerning the proxy and witnesses. The purported marriage therefore had no legal effect in Pakistan.
3. Characterisation and remedy. The English court was entitled to determine whether the defects amounted to a void marriage or a non-marriage by applying appropriate English law concepts. The expert evidence established that Pakistani law recognised equivalent concepts, and the court concluded that the ceremony was a non-qualifying ceremony or non-marriage. A declaration of non-recognition was appropriate on public policy grounds, providing certainty and protecting MK from the implications of a forced marriage. The conclusion was confined to the particular facts.
4. Capacity. Although lack of capacity could, in an appropriate case, engage public policy considerations, the circumstances did not warrant non-recognition on that ground. The declaration rested on the fundamental formal defects.
5. Best interests and costs. The court approved the care plan and authorised time-limited restrictions on MK’s internet and pornography access while tailored education on consent, relationships and online safety was provided, with later review. It refused to vary the earlier order requiring GK and MAK to bear half the expert’s attendance costs. The parties were directed to draw up orders giving effect to the judgment.