Key Facts
- •The applicant (PF) and respondent (QF) participated in a marriage ceremony in 2001, which was void ab initio due to the applicant's existing marriage.
- •The respondent applied to debar the applicant from pursuing financial remedy orders.
- •The parties lived together for 19 years and had two children.
- •The applicant's first marriage was a forced marriage, and she obtained a decree absolute in 2002.
- •Both parties claim the other knew about the applicant's first marriage at the time of their ceremony.
- •The respondent discovered the applicant's first marriage was not dissolved before their marriage in 2020.
- •Findings of domestic abuse by the respondent against the applicant were made in separate Family Law Act proceedings.
Legal Principles
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no action arises from a base cause): A person should not profit from their crime.
Common law principle
Whiston v Whiston [1995] Fam 198: A spouse who committed bigamy should not be entitled to a financial award.
Court of Appeal
Rampal v Rampal (No 2) [2002] Fam 85: The Whiston principle is not an absolute bar; culpability is a key factor.
Court of Appeal
Vince v Wyatt [2015] 2 All ER 755: FPR r.4.4(1) should be construed strictly; striking out a claim requires it to be 'illegally recognisable'.
Supreme Court
FPR r.4.4(1)(b): The court may strike out a statement of case if it is an abuse of the court's process.
Family Procedure Rules
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Permits applications for financial remedies even if the marriage is void.
Statute
Forfeiture Act 1982: Allows modification or disapplication of the forfeiture rule if justice requires it.
Statute
Outcomes
The respondent's application to debar the applicant from pursuing financial remedies was refused.
The court found the facts closer to Rampal than Whiston; both parties knew of the void marriage, and the applicant's claim wasn't solely based on the void marriage. Public policy supports recognizing the long-term partnership and ensuring a fair division of assets.