X City Council v MB, NB and MAB [2006] EWHC 168 (Fam); [2006] 2 FLR 968
The capacity of an adult with autistic spectrum disorder to marry.
Facts
MAB (M), aged 25, had severe autistic spectrum disorder. He was cared for by his parents (P), who wished him to marry his cousin. The cousin had been refused entry into the UK, so P arranged for M to travel to Pakistan. P were 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 suitable undertakings could be given.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
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 recognised as valid in English law because M lacked the capacity to marry. Munby J reached that conclusion on the medical evidence as well as the parties’ agreement. (3) Injunctions were not necessary on these facts because the court was satisfied that M’s parents would honour their undertakings. Those undertakings prohibited causing or permitting any civil or religious ceremony of betrothal or marriage, and taking M outside England, Wales and Scotland. An undertaking was enforceable in the same way as an injunction. M’s passport was to be returned to his parents. The court did not rule out the remote possibility of sufficient future improvement to permit travel or marriage. It allowed applications to vary or discharge the undertakings, declarations and orders on notice and with supporting evidence, including psychiatric evidence and, for proposed air travel, the airline’s written agreement.
