Nullity

• Author: Stephen G.A. Pitel; Nicholas S. Rafferty
• Pages: 451-463

CHAPTER

23

NULLITY

A.

VOID

AND

VOIDABLE

MARRIAGES

The

law

distinguishes

between

void

and

voidable

marriages.

In

De

Rene-

ville

v

De

Reneville,

Lord

Greene

MR

explained

the

distinction

in

the

fol



lowing

manner:

a

void

marriage

is

one

that

will

be

regarded

by

every

court

in

any

case

in

which

the

existence

of

the

marriage

is

in

issue

as

never

having

taken

place

and

can

be

so

treated

by

both

parties

to

it

without

the

necessity

of

any

decree

annulling

it:

a

voidable

marriage

is

one

that

will

be

re



garded

by

every

court

as

a

valid

subsisting

marriage

until

a

decree

an



nulling

it

has

been

pronounced

by

a

court

of

competent

jurisdiction.

1

In

the

past,

the

distinction

was

of

particular

consequence

in

the

deter



mination

of

the

domicile

of

the

parties.

At

common

law,

in

the

case

of

a

voidable

marriage,

a

married

woman

’

s

domicile

was

dependent

upon

that

of

her

husband.

A

void

marriage,

on

the

other

hand,

was

regarded

as

a

complete

nullity

and

thus

a

woman

was

free

to

acquire

a

domi



cile

separate

from

that

of

her

supposed

husband.

2

Since

the

abolition

of

a

married

woman

’

s

domicile

of

dependency,

3

the

importance

of

the

distinction

has

lessened

substantially.

Any

remaining

significance

is

1

[1948]

P

100

at

111

(CA)

[De

Reneville],

2

Savelieff

v

Glouchkoff

(1964),

45

DLR

(2d)

520

(BCCA)

[Saveliejf],

3

See

Chapter

2.

451