header-logo header-logo

The predatory marriage trap

26 March 2020 / James McKean , Andrew Bishop
Issue: 7880 / Categories: Features , Family , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail
18317
James McKean, Andrew Bishop & Hollie Richardson highlight the morality & dangers of predatory marriage & probate
  • Individuals without mental capacity can be ensnared in predatory marriages, in this jurisdiction and abroad.
  • Following an unfortunate change to the law in 1971, these marriages are voidable, not void, and cannot be challenged after death. They allow spouses to take the benefit of the intestacy rules. Beneficiaries under any previous wills are disinherited, and largely without recourse.
  • Practitioners should be alert to the testamentary effects of marriage and consider capacity to marry just as they consider capacity to make a will.

The concept of ‘predatory marriage’ may not mean a great deal to English lawyers, and certainly not probate practitioners. But it is a phenomenon which can have serious and permanent testamentary effects.

Take an individual (henceforth ‘A’), whose mental capacity is in doubt. If A marries, the effect of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 12(c), is that the marriage will not be void, but rather voidable—as in contract

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Manchester firm strengthens Court of Protection expertise with partner hire

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Agricultural law team expands with senior director appointments

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

NEWS
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll