Court of Appeal Determines Transfer of Tenancy Rights for Parties to Void Marriage under Family Law Act 1996
Introduction
In the case of Manouchehr Shilani Tousi v Natalya Gaydukova, the Court of Appeal (EWCA Civ 203) delves into the jurisdictional intricacies of the Family Law Act 1996 concerning the transfer of tenancy between individuals who underwent a void marriage ceremony. The case brings forth critical legal principles regarding the formal validity of marriages celebrated abroad, the determination of marital status under English law, and the applicability of the provisions for transferring tenancy rights under Schedule 7 of the Family Law Act 1996.
Key Facts
The parties, identified as husband and wife in the proceedings, were involved in a marriage ceremony at the Iranian Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, in 1997. Despite their belief that they were in a valid marriage for over 20 years, expert evidence established that under its proper law, the marriage was invalid ab initio, and incapable of later ratification under Ukrainian law. The wife applied for a transfer of the tenancy of the family home under the Family Law Act 1996, leading to the central legal dispute on whether parties to a void marriage are subject to tenancy transfer provisions designed for spouses/former spouses or for cohabitants/former cohabitants.
Legal Principles
Several legal principles underpin this case:
-
Formal Validity of Marriage: The principle that the law of the place where a marriage was celebrated (lex loci celebrationis) determines the formal validity of the marriage was a focal point. The court reiterated that the validity of the ceremony is governed by the law of the country of celebration and only that aspect of the validity is recognized internationally.
-
Void Marriage and Marital Status: In English law, a void marriage is treated as never having taken place, and no legal decree is necessary to annul it. Although a nullity decree can be sought, parties to a void marriage are effectively treated as cohabitants.
-
Transfer of Tenancy under Family Law Act 1996: The pivotal legal issue was whether parties to a void foreign marriage fall within Paragraph 2 (relating to spouses) or Paragraph 3 (relating to cohabitants) of Schedule 7 to the Family Law Act 1996. The court had to consider the definitions as laid out in Section 62 of the Act and how they interact with the transfer of tenancy provisions.
-
Jurisdiction and Relief: The court examined whether the potential remedies available under foreign law should impact the relief provided under English law, concluding there is no correlation; the English courts are to determine what relief, if any, is available under English law independent of the remedies prescribed by the foreign law where the marriage ceremony took place.
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal determined that:
- Parties to a void marriage ceremony are effectively “cohabitants” under English law and are consequently within the scope of Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to the Family Law Act 1996.
- The court had jurisdiction to make a transfer of tenancy order under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7.
- There is no necessity to extend the legal principle regarding the formal validity of the marriage to consider the “ramifications of invalidity” or available remedies under foreign law; these do not restrict the remedies under English law.
- The appeal by the husband was dismissed, and the Recorder’s order transferring the tenancy to the wife was upheld.
Conclusion
In Manouchehr Shilani Tousi v Natalya Gaydukova, the Court of Appeal clarified that parties to a void marriage are not required to obtain a nullity decree to be eligible for a transfer of tenancy order under the Family Law Act 1996. Instead, they are considered within the ambit of “cohabitants” and entitled to prompt remedy through Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7. The decision underscores the principle of limiting the role of foreign law to the formal validity of marriage ceremonies and reinforces the autonomy of English law in determining available domestic remedies.