RA (Appeal: Validity of a Marriage: Finding of Fact), Re

An entry in the marriage register or a certified marriage certificate is prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence of the statutory facts recorded. The court must assess the totality of the evidence where the validity of the marriage is disputed.

On an appeal against factual findings, the appellate court must respect the first-instance judge’s advantage in hearing the evidence, but must intervene where the decision is wrong, procedurally unsafe, or materially affected by an error of principle or omission. In a case turning on whether a marriage ceremony occurred, inconsistent findings about the authenticity of the certificate and the alleged participant’s presence, failure to consider a relevant conviction bearing on credibility, and failure to consider competing motivations may render the decision unsafe.

The parties had been Islamically married in 1999 and had two children. One party asserted that they had also married in a civil ceremony at a registry office on 14 December 2009. The other denied attending the ceremony, although the marriage certificate appeared authentic.

After a three-day fact-finding hearing, District Judge Buckley found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent had not been present and dismissed the divorce petition and financial remedy application. Permission to appeal was initially refused, but the application was renewed and transferred to the High Court.

The central questions were whether the District Judge had applied the correct approach to the certificate and burden of proof, and whether his factual findings and assessment of credibility were safe.

1. Appeal allowed. The order of District Judge Buckley dated 18 January 2024 was set aside. The fact-finding hearing was remitted for rehearing by a High Court Judge of the Family Division.
2. A marriage celebrated in England and Wales may be established by the relevant register entry or certified copy. A marriage certificate is the best evidence of the ceremony, but the entry is only prima facie evidence and may be displaced by the totality of the evidence: L-K V K (No 3) [2006] EWHC 3281 (Fam); Islam v Islam [2003] 2 FLR 1208.
3. The District Judge had correctly stated that the certificate was the best evidence and had not reversed the burden of proof. However, his findings on the central issue were internally inconsistent. He found no reason to doubt the certificate’s authenticity, but also found that the Respondent had not attended the ceremony. If the signature was genuine, the Respondent must have been present; if he was absent, the signature must have been forged.
4. The credibility assessment was materially flawed because the District Judge failed to consider the Respondent’s previous conviction for perverting the course of justice, despite its relevance having been raised in argument. The court was required to determine what, if any, weight should be given to it.
5. The District Judge also failed to consider positive reasons why the parties might have entered into a civil marriage, whether the Respondent denied the ceremony to defeat a claim for financial relief, and the significance of their continuing relationship until 2013. These were material omissions.
6. Although an appellate court must respect the first-instance judge’s advantage in assessing oral evidence, it must intervene where satisfied that the decision is wrong or unsafe: Vaughan v Vaughan [2007] EWCA Civ 1085; Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 2 FLR 763; Sherrington v Sherrington [2005] EWCA Civ 326.
7. Because the appellate court had not heard the evidence and had no transcripts, it was inappropriate to substitute its own factual decision. The matter was therefore remitted for rehearing.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from the order of District Judge Buckley dated 18 January 2024. The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the fact-finding hearing was remitted for rehearing.