Anullment of Marriage

...

Applying this to the situation of George, he was pressured by her and their mutual friends and the ultimatum by Alison. This could be seen as a threat that destroy the reality of the consent as he would not have consented if its not for Alison’s ultimatum. If Hirani approach was taken then George could easily annul the marriage.

As for Alison’s part, she could rely Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 12(a) and (b) that marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it and that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the willful refusal of the respondent. In DE v AG Dr. Lushington stated that the degree of sexual intercourse that is required that it must be “ordinary and complete and not partial, and imperfect.” Drawing analogy for the case of W v W it was stated that there must be full penetration for a reasonable length of time but it is irrelevant whether either party is incapable of orgasm it could be state that George fails to consummate and he willfully did not consummate as he did not wish to get medical help for his inability to maintain erection as per case of Horton v Horton as George did not give any just excuse.

On the other side of coin, George would argue that hos condition is not something that is incurable as there a medical help available. As for the willful refusal, George has later in time wanted to have child thus there is no refusal present anymore. On this ground Alison would fail in her claim.

The most important point to note is that Alison could rely on the consummation only if she had the gender certificate and she was accepted by the court as a woman. If she has no gender certificate and her situation is to be decided as per the case of Corbett v Corbett then she could not rely on the inability to consummate as this ground only available for opposite sex couple and not for same sex couple.

If as sated above, Alison had a gender recognition certificate, then she rely on MCA 1973 s1 presenting to the court that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and seek for a divorce.. Yet, following the case of Bufrey v Bufrey, there need to proved one of the five facts stated in s2 MCA 1973 for a divorce to be applied. Following this, Alison can rely on s2(b) that George behaved in such a way that Alison finds it intolerate to live with him. Applying to the fact, Alison had asked him to see a doctor about his problem after hearing that medical treatment was available that could help but Roger refused. Drawing analogy from the case of Livingstone-Stallard v Livingstone –Stallard, it would be a situation where any right thinking person come to the conclusion that George behaved in such a way that this wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.