Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T23:50:44.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Formal Sufficiency of Foreign Marriages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

J. David Fine
J. David Fine*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has long been a general rule of common law that a marriage is valid only if formalized in a manner recognised by the law of the place of celebration. This rule is continued in Australian law by explicit statutory provision.

In this Article Mr Fine suggests that in Australian Law the category of exceptions to the lex loci celebrationis requirement is significantly wider than in the common law of England. He also finds that in situations outside the scope of the requirement, Australian courts should apply the parties’ domiciliary law to decide formal validity—not the law of the forum, though the latter is used in English courts as the law of second resort.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 49 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sykes, A Textbook on the Australian Conflict of Laws (1972) 75-96; North (ed.), Cheshire’s Private International Law (9th ed. 1974) 316-349.

2 S. 51(2): “A marriage that takes place after the commencement of this Act is void where—... (c) the marriage is not a valid marriage under the law of the place where the marriage takes place, by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of the law of that place with respect to the form of solemnization of marriages ... “

3 Costa, Mendes da “The Formalities of Marriage in the Conflict of Laws” (1958) 7 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 217, 227-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 S. 42(2): “Where it would be in accordance with the common law rules of private international law to apply the laws of any country or place (including a State or Territory), the court shall apply the laws of that country or place.”

5 Supra n. 2. The implications of ss. 42(2) and 51(2)(c) upon the future of the rule in Australian law are considered in Division 1 of this Article.

6 Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws (9th ed. 1973) 236.

7 Sykes, op. cit. 77. See too Cheshire, op cit. 316.

8 Mendes da Costa, op. cit. 217.

9 Id. 233.

10 Ibid., quoting, uncritically, Scrimshire v. Scrimshire (1752) 2 Hag. Con. 395, 412; 161 E.R. 782, 788.

11 Mendes da Costa, op. cit. 235.

12 Cheshire, op. cit. 318-319; Dicey and Morris, loc cit.

13 Batiffol, Aspects philosophiques du droit international privé (Paris: Dalloz, 1956) 73-74 (para. 32).

14 Batiffol, Traité élémentaire de droit international privé (4th ed. 1967) 474 (para. 425).

15 E.g. “freedom of contract”. See too Marriage Act 1961-1973 (Cth) ss. 29, 43, 45 and 47.

16 [1930] A.C. 79.

17 Id. 83.

18 (1811) 2 Hag. Con. 54; 161 E.R. 665.

19 (1752) 2 Hag. Con. 395; 161 E.R. 782.

20 (1821) 2 Hag. Con. 371; 161 E.R. 774.

21 Johnstone v. Godet (1813) Fergusson Consistorial Law Reports 8.

22 Semble: In re Green; Noyes v. Pitkin (1909) 25 T.L.R. 222 (Swinfen Eady J.) where a New York marriage per verba de praesenti was recognised.

23 Lord Cloncurry’s Case (H.L.) unreported but cited by counsel in The Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 6 St. Tr. (N.S.) 79, 87; (1844) 11 Cl. & Fin. 85, 92; 8 E.R. 1034, 1037.

24 Phillips v. Phillips (1921) 38 T.L.R. 150 (Sir Henry Duke P.); Wolfenden v. Wolfenden [1946] P. 61, 62-63 (Lord Merriman P.).

25 Wolfenden v. Wolfenden [1946] P. 61, 63.

26 (1821) 2 Hag. Con. 371, 387; 161 E.R. 774, 780. See too the obiter dictum of the same judge in Burn v. Farrar (1819) 2 Hag. Con. 369, 370; 161 E.R. 773, 774.

27 (1821) 2 Hag. Con. 371, 387; 161 E.R. 774, 780.

28 Id. 389; 780.

29 ld. 387; 780.

30 [1957] P. 301.

31 Id. 330. Ormerod L.J. agreed with Parker L.J., Hodson L.J. did not discuss the matter.

32 Kochanski v. Kochanska [1958] P. 147, 153.

33 Preston (orse. Putynski) v. Preston (orse. Putynska) (orse. Basinska) [1963] P. 141 (Cairns J.); Merker v. Merker [1963] P. 283 (Sir Jocelyn Simon P.).

34 [1963] P. 411.

35 Id. 427.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Id. 433-434.

40 Id. 435.

41 [1950) S.A.S.R. 309.

42 Id. 311.

43 In an identical vein, see Maksymec v. Maksymec and Kocan (1954) 72 W.N. (N.S.W.) 522, 524 per Myers J.; Kuklycz v. Kuklycz [1972) V.R. 50 (Norris A-J); Sadek v. Owarowa (unreported) Supreme Court of Tasmania, 18 July 1975, No. 32/1975 noted [1975] Australian Current Law Digest DT208 (Chambers J.).

44 Milder v. Milder [1959] V.R. 95 (Smith J.); Grzybowicz v. Grzybowicz (orse. Kochanczuk) [1963] S.A.S.R. 62 (Napier C.J.); Dukov v. Dukov [1969] Q.W.N. 9. (Hoare J.)

45 [1952] S.A.S.R. 152.

46 Id. 154.

47 Ibid.

48 See Part IV of the Act.

49 Savenis v. Savenis and Szmeck [1950] S.A.S.R. 309.

50 Maksymec v. Maksymec and Kocan (1954) 72 W.N. (N.S.W.) 522.

51 Milder v. Milder [1959] V.R. 95; Kuklycz v. Kuklycz [1972] V.R. 50.

52 Semble: Dukov v. Dukov [1969] Q.W.N. 9.

53 Sadek v. Owarowa cited supra n. 43.

54 R. v. Fuzil Deen (1895) 6 Quee)lsland Law Journal Reports 302; Tyson v. Logan (1891) 12 N.S.W.L.R. (D) 29; Rouse v. Rouse [1925] V.L.R. 584.

55 State v. Samuel, a Slave (1836) 2 Devereux & Battle 177, 181 (North Carolina Reports). See too Semonche, “Common-Law Marriage in North Carolina: A study in Legal History” (1965) 9 American Journal of Legal History 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 E.g., the Sultanate of Oman, on the Persian Gulf: see Halliday, Arabia Without Sultans (1974) 277-278.

57 “Slavery Convention” (1926) 60 League of Nations Treaty Series 253 (No. 1414): ratified by Australia 18 June 1927.

58 But see Division 3 of this Article regarding what is deemed “the law of England” for this purpose!

59 Taczanowska (orse. Roth) v. Taczanowski [1957] P. 301, 326, 331 applied in Kochanski v. Kochanska [1958] P. 147, 153-155 (Sachs J.) and Narewski v. Narewski (1966) 110 Solicitors’ Journal 466 (Cumming-Bruce J.).

60 Taczanowska (orse. Roth) v. Taczanowski [1957] P. 301, 331.

61 E.g. Sykes, A Textbook on the Australian Conflict of Laws (1972) 83-94, and authorities cited therein.

62 Taczanowska (orse. Roth) v. Taczanowski [1957] P. 301, 326 per Hodson L.J. For the concurrence of Parker and Ormerod L.JJ. see id. 331 and 332 (respectively).

63 Id. 327 per Hodson L.J.: Parker and Ormerod L.JJ. again concurred; id. 331 and 332 (respectively).

64 [1950] S.A.S.R. 309, 311 (italics added).

65 [1972] V.R. 50.

66 Id. 52.

67 [1952] S.A.S.R. 152.

68 Id. 153-154.

69 (1954) 72 W.N. (N.S.W.) 522.

70 Id. 523.

71 Id. 525.

72 S. 51(2)(c) of the Family Law Act.

73 Catterall v. Catterall (1847) 1 Rob. Ecc. 580; 163 E.R. 1142 (Dr Lushington); Apt v. Apt [1948] P. 83 (C.A.).

74 Quick v. Quick [1953] V.L.R. 224 (F.C.); Kuklycz v. Kuklycz [1972] V.R. 50 (Norris A-J); Hodgson v. Stawell (1864) 1 Victorian Law Times 51 (F.C.); contra: R. v. Roberts (1850) Legge 544 (N.S.W.F.C.).

75 Marriage Act 1961-1973 (Cth) s. 40(1).