Z v Z

A marriage certificate and register entry provide strong prima facie evidence that a civil marriage took place. Where fraud is alleged against that evidence, the party alleging fraud bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities. The court must assess the totality of the evidence, including the reliability of the certificate, the registration process, corroboration, and the parties’ credibility. The absence of supporting evidence may weaken the case, but its significance depends on the circumstances, including cultural and relationship context. A presumption of marriage cannot sustain a marriage alleged to have been created by fraud if the fraud is proved.

The parties had undergone an Islamic marriage in 1999 and disputed whether they had also entered into a civil marriage at a registry office in December 2009. A marriage certificate and register entry appeared to bear the respondent’s signature. The respondent alleged that an imposter had attended the ceremony and that the applicant had procured a fraudulent registration.

The issue had previously been determined by DJ Buckley on 18 January 2024. Henke J allowed an appeal on 15 May 2024 and set aside that decision. The matter was reheard to determine whether the respondent had attended the civil ceremony and whether the parties were legally married.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The certificate or register entry was the starting point and constituted prima facie evidence, but not conclusive proof, of the marriage. Where that evidence was met by an allegation of fraud, the burden of proving the fraud rested on the party making the allegation. The standard was the balance of probabilities (paras [19]–[27]).
2. Assessment of the evidence. The court assessed the totality of the evidence. The registration process, including the prior provision of photographic identification and the apparent signature, strongly supported the occurrence of the ceremony. The absence of evidence from the formal witnesses and the lack of corroborative material counted against the applicant, but carried less weight in the cultural and relational context. The court declined to treat the respondent’s previous lies as automatically establishing that he had lied in the present case, while treating a false Islamic divorce document as relevant, albeit limited, credibility evidence (paras [29]–[37], [76]–[90]).
3. Presumption of marriage. The applicant’s alternative reliance on a presumption arising from cohabitation, children and representations as husband and wife was not pursued. The judge expressed the preliminary view that, if the civil ceremony had involved fraud, such circumstances would not sustain the presumption (para [21]).
4. Disposition. The court found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had attended the ceremony and that the parties were civilly married. The requested conduct findings were declined because harassment was not an issue properly before the court. Costs were left for further written submissions, and the parties were invited to prepare a draft order and provide an update concerning financial remedy directions (paras [90]–[93]).

1. High Court (Family Division): Henke J allowed the appeal on 15 May 2024 and set aside the decision of DJ Buckley handed down on 18 January 2024.
2. High Court (Family Division): On rehearing, Mr Justice Trowell found that the respondent attended the civil ceremony and that the parties were married.