FL Assignment Q1: Issue Petitioner - Leonard Respondent - Karen > Petitioner wishes to terminate his marriage to the respondent on grounds of nullity i.e annulment. This is an alternative to divorce > Less social stigma > more so because their romance was already publicized by media. > Whether or not the court grants nullity depends on what type of grounds > void? > voidable? (According to Lord Greene MR in `De Reneville v De Reneville) > If this fails for any reason, petitioner can always argue divorce law. Rules > The Women`s Charter (Chapter 3) > S105 : Defines void marriage as one that ends automatically because of legal grounds. ie, marriage never subsisted in the first place. E.g : Same gender ; not meeting formalities of a civil marriage ; polygamy. > S106 : Defines voidable marriage as one that is still valid until set aside by parties. ie, marriage can still subsist if parties can tolerate faults/impediment/defect. E.g : Pregnancy per alium ; mental disorder ; vitiated consent ; non consummation. Application (I) Does S105 (void grounds) apply in our scenario? > On the facts, they met on a dating game show and nearly exchange vows religiously. In other words, there does not seem to be compliance with a civil marriage formality. In Singapore, couples are required to register with Registry of Marriage in order to obtain a marriage certificate. > Marriage certificate : Marital contract which is a voluntary union between man and woman (Lord Pemzarice in Hyde v Hyde) > Prima-facie, there seems to be a lack of formality. However, we have to assume that the couple did go to ROM eventually since we are told in the facts that they "got married". (ii) Does S106 (voidable grounds) apply? Non consummation > On the facts, there were no consummation. Non consummation based on willful refusal > On the facts, this does not seem to be willful considering that there was a consensus. In Horten v Horton, willful refusal decision must be arrived at without justification. > Prima-facie, non consummation argument cannot apply to our facts. Vitiated consent (duress, mistake, unsound mind) > Duress : force/pressure On the facts, this could be in form of the lure of game prize. However, applying Szechter v Szechter, there must be a genuine threat to life, limb and liberty. > Mistake : Identity or quality? On the facts, he could have been mistaken as to his feelings for her. > Unsound mind : Temporarily blinded by the thrill or excitement of marriage > Following Harrord v Harrord, there was an inability to understand nature, duties and responsibilities of marriage. Prima-facie; there is likely to be vitiated (negated/affected) consent. (iii) Bars to Annulment/Nullity? > S107 W.C (Within 3 years of marriage? Knowledge of defects before marriage?) > On the facts, petitioner already knew respondent does not wish to consummate. He agreed to this arrangement. > On the facts, petitioner willingly sign up for a dating activity. Furthermore, we are told that he now genuinely loves the respondent. Therefore, he cannot argue vitiated consent at all. > Prima-facie- no defences applicable. Conclusion > Likely to grant decree of nullity. > If not > apply for divorce > possibly unreasonable behavior (S95 (3)) Karen pregnant with another man`s child > (i) Nullity? > Pregnancy per alium > (ii) Diverse? > Adultery FL Assignment Q2: Issue Petitioner - Frederick Respondent - Winnie > Claim/apply for a divorce order Terminate the marriage > Prove IBM + 1 or more of 5 factors. > If successfully granted > Remedies > Uncontested/Contested? (ancillary proceeding) Rules > The W.C > S95(3) : Adultery, Behavior, Desertion, Separation with consent, separation without consent. Application (I) Adultery? > Define > Couple of case law > Relate to factual scenario "Affair" > Sexual in nature? Comparing sexual ability > Conclude : Likely! (ii) Unreasonable Behavior? > Define > Couple of case law > Relate to the facts Winnie`s insolence towards the husband Husband`s own behavior (birds of a feather flock together) > Conclude - Likely! (iii) Desertion? > Define > 1 case only? > Relate > Conclude (iv) 3 year separation? (v) 4 year separation? (vi) Bars to Divorce? > S95(4)/S94 W.C > Conduct of parties? Lord Denning : "Conduct of the parties must be so gross before the courts will consider granting the order" (White v White) i.e : Blameworthy of the parties > However, there doesn`t seem to be any other limitations such as hardship or children or disability. Conclusion > Likely for order to be granted.