X City Council v MB, NB and MAB [2006] EWHC 168 (Fam)
The capacity of an adult with autistic spectrum disorder to marry.
Facts
M, aged 25, had severe autistic spectrum disorder. He was cared for by P, who had arranged for him to meet his cousin in order to be married. The cousin had been refused entry into the UK, so P arranged for M to travel to Pakistan. P was advised that a long flight may be detrimental to M’s wellbeing, but appeared to wish to continue with the plan. The Council obtained emergency injunctions seizing M’s passport and sought to have full injunctions made preventing his travel. All parties conceded that M did not have the capacity to marry and P argued that injunctions were unnecessary because undertakings not to take M to Pakistan or cause him to be married could be given.
Issue
(1) When could the court intervene in circumstances such as this? (2) What would be the effect of a marriage made where a party to it could not give consent? (3) Should the emergency injunctions be made full injunctions?
Held
(1) The court held that it was able to exercise its protective role where there was a real possibility of harm to a vulnerable adult. This was particularly the case where taking the relevant steps gave the court the opportunity to prevent serious and irreparable harm occurring in the future. (2) The court made a declaration that any marriage entered into by M in any country would not be held to a be a valid marriage in English law because M lacked the capacity to marry. (3) Injunctions were not necessary on these facts because P’s family were honourable and therefore undertakings not to take M to Pakistan or to cause him to marry were sufficient. The court was also aware that M’s condition might improve in the future and that, if this occurred, he may then have the required capacity to marry.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in X City Council v MB, NB and MAB [2006] EWHC 168 (Fam), which remains a leading authority on the mental capacity required to marry and the court’s protective jurisdiction over vulnerable adults.
Readers should note the following developments since 2006. First, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (which came into force in October 2007, after this judgment was delivered) now provides the primary statutory framework for assessing capacity in England and Wales. The common law capacity test applied in this case — that a person must understand the nature of marriage and the duties and responsibilities it creates — has been confirmed as consistent with the MCA 2005 approach, but the statutory framework now governs. Second, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 inserted provisions into the Family Law Act 1996 creating forced marriage protection orders, which offer additional protective remedies beyond those considered in this case. Third, forced marriage was criminalised in England and Wales by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, s 121. Fourth, and importantly, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 raised the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership in England and Wales to 18 with no exceptions, removing the previous ability of 16 and 17 year olds to marry with parental or court consent. This does not affect the core ratio of this case but is part of the broader statutory context. The article remains a reliable account of the 2006 judgment itself.
